Full text of "History Of Speech Education In America Background Studies"

See other formats

History of speech education in

371*914 W19h 55-07958
Wallace $7,50

History of speech education in
America •

kansas city public library

••»* Kansas city, missouri

Books will be issued only

on presentation of library card.
Please report lost cards and

change of residence promptly.
Card holders are responsible for

all books, records, films, pictures
or other library materials
checked out on their cards.

'flif f »- <-•

SOUTHEAST
NOV2V565I

OCT 15 1964 ',

MAR 2 2 1966

. /I

APR2719S

HISTORY OF

SPEECH EDUCATION

IN AMERICA

History of

Speech Education in America

BACKGROUND STUDIES

PREPARED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE

Speech Association of America

KARL E. WALLACE, Editor

WARREN GUTHRIE

FREDERICK W. HABERMAN HAROLD WESTLAKE
BARNARD HEWITT CLAUDE M. WISE

Editorial Board

New York
APPLETON-CENTURY-CROFTS, INC.

AU rights reserved. This book, or parts
thereof, must not be reproduced in any
form without permission of the publishers.

584-1

Library of Congress Card Number:
54-6203

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA

PREFACE

This volume of studies was undertaken early in 1948 with the official
sanction of the Speech Association of America. Since the early 1930's,
the Association's Committee on the History of Speech Education, under
the leadership of Giles Gray, A. M. Drummond, and Bert Emsley,
helped to secure the interest of scholars and teachers in the history and
tradition of the field of Speech as it has unfolded in the United States.
Committee members themselves engaged in historical studies, and
some of their own labors are represented in this volume. They cajoled
an occasional graduate student into unearthing materials and preparing
theses that helped to reveal the foundations of old meaning and to
beget new vigor for modern precept and practice. By mid-1947 the
Committee— and many other persons concerned with the backgrounds
of pedagogy— believed that the time had come for a joint, systematic
project of considerable magnitude. The early studies had not only
provided valuable information about the teaching of Speech in
America; they pointed to bibliographic resources and suggested many
directions of profitable research. In December, 1947? upon recom-
mendation of the Committee, the Association authorized this volume
of papers and selected the Editorial Board.

For six years this book has been in preparation. Aided by the Com-
mittee, the Board set up a chronological list of topics. The list gave
some system to the project and the topics are reflected, for the most
part, in the chapter headings. Readers, however, should not regard the
chronological progression as an attempt to write definitive history. Be-
fore a "final" history of speech education can be prepared, we need the
work of many future scholars who will furnish the facts as to who
taught what, and where, and how. We believe, nevertheless, that the
studies included here supply significant information and afford inter-
pretations which must be reckoned with by future historians of the
subject. They organize much that has already been done; they offer
much that is new.

The scope of the studies covers American speech education from
Colonial times to about 1925. But because most of the streams in

VI PREFACE

American education have their tributaries in English and classical
sources, three articles focus on the springs and currents which flowed
long before New England and Virginia schools and colleges were
established.

The main current bears the formal label of Rhetoric, the art of verbal
communication. We are mainly concerned in this book, not with writ-
ing, but with speaking—with the use of speech in socially significant
situations and the attempts to teach the art of oral communication in a
formal educational environment. Rhetoric so conceived gave rise to a
number of branches of study. It gave impetus to the study of style and
speech composition, to the study of elocution and delivery, to the
analysis of speech sounds, and to phonetics and pronunciation. It gave
considerable impetus, also, to the art of composition and delivery in
the theatre. If these may be thought of as the chief branches of rhetoric,
it seems clear that the branches divide and subdivide, gathering
strength in studies other than rhetoric, until they establish their own
currents which we designate today by such terms as speech correction
and pathology, oral interpretation, educational dramatics, and the arts
of mass communication— radio and television.

About all of these branches, except radio and television, this book
has something to say. In other words, it focuses upon systematic educa-
tion in speech as it has been manifested in the college and the school.

The terminal date, 1925, has not emerged inviolate. In some ways it
provided a logical stopping point, for by the 1920's the basic lines of
speech instruction had been recognized academically, at least in the
American college. The study of phonetics and speech correction, both
in course and in clinic, had taken root; dramatics had found its niche;
oral interpretation had its ally in literature; public speaking and dis-
cussion had been taught effectively outside of the traditional courses in
English composition; undergraduate and graduate majors in speech
had been formally established. By and large, what has happened since
the 1920's in the field of Speech reflects the influence of increasing
specialization and the application of basic knowledges and skills to
meet professional requirements in a professionally minded society. An
account of such developments, especially in education for radio and
television, will have to be told later. The reader will discover, further-
more, that in a few instances, chiefly in the article dealing with inter-
collegiate debating and in the chapters treating of the professional
societies, which did much to foster speech education, the significant
story had to include certain events in the 1930's and the 1940V The
character of the American Educational Theatre Association, for ex-
ample, did not emerge clearly until the last decade.

The Editorial Board fully acknowledges the fine co-operation of the

PREFACE Vll

contributors. Many of them are recognized as authorities in their lines
of study. They were asked to take a fresh look at their materials, to
extend their research, and to prepare new studies. This they gladly did.
A few of the authors were asked to undertake what to them were new
lines of investigation. They, too, responded superbly. The results, we
feel, are worth the close observation and critical analysis which both
mature scholars and graduate students in Speech can exercise.

We are grateful to our publishers and their editorial assistants whose
faith in this venture is as great as ours. The Speech Association of
America stands in heavy debt to members of the Editorial Board, par-
ticularly Professor Hewitt, whose labors were often beyond routine
endeavor. To Professor Haberman goes deep appreciation for the
preparation of the index. And to the contributors, I express my per-
sonal respect and admiration. Many of them have graciously borne our
editorial suggestions, requests, revisions, liberties, and idiosyncrasies.
Such credit as this work may deserve belongs entirely to them. I alone
must bear its shortcomings.

KARL R. WALLACE

CONTENTS

PREFACE ........ . v

PART I

THE HERITAGE

CHAPTER

1. English Backgrounds of Rhetoric WILBUR SAMUEL HOWELL 1

2. Rhetorical Theory in Colonial America WARREN GUTHRIE 48

3. Rhetorical Practice in Colonial America GEORGE v. BOHMAN 60

4. English Sources of Rhetorical Theory in Nineteenth-Century

America . ... CLARENCE w. EDNEY 80

5. English Sources of American Elocution . 105

FREDERICK W. HABERMAN

PART II

RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

6. American Contributions to Rhetorical Theory and Homiletics 129

JOHN P. HOSHOR

7. Rhetorical and Elocutionary Training in Nineteenth-Century

Colleges . . MARIE HOCHMUTH AND RICHARD MURPHY 153

8. The Elocutionary Movement and Its Chief Figures . 178

MARY MARGARET ROBB

9. Steele MacKaye and the Delsartian Tradition . 202

CLAUDE L. SHAVER

jyp Dr. James Rush , . LESTER L. HALE 219

11. The Literary Society . . DAVID POTTER 238

12. Intercollegiate Debating .... 259

L. LEROY COWPERTHWAITE AND A. CRAIG BAIRD

X CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

IS. Speech Education in Nineteenth-Century Schools . 277

GLADYS L. BORCHERS AND LILLIAN R. WAGNER

14. Five Private Schools of Speech . EDYTH RENSHAW 301

15. Phonetics and Pronunciation 326

BERT EMSLEY, CHARLES K. THOMAS, AND CLAUDE SIFRITT

16. The Rise of Experimental Phonetics JAMES F. CURTIS 348

17. Some Symbolic Systems for Teaching the Deaf 370

C. V. IIUDGINS

18. Development of Education in Speech and Hearing to 1920 . 389

CLARENCE T. SIMON

19. Some Teachers and the Transition to Twentieth-Century

Speech Education . . GILES WILKESON GRAY 422

20. Origin and Development of Departments of Speech . . 447

DONALD K. SMITH

21. Speech Education in Twentieth-Century Public Schools 471

HALBERT E. GULLEY AND HUGH SEABURY

22. National Speech Organizations and Speech Education . , 490

FRANK M. RARIG AND HALBERT S, GREAVES

PART III

THE EDUCATIONAL THEATRE

23. Educational Dramatics in Nineteenth-Century Colleges 523

JOHN L, CLARK

24. The Private Theatre Schools in the Late Nineteenth Century 552

FRANCIS HODGE

25. College and University Theatre Instruction in the Early

Twentieth Century . . CLIFFORD EUGENE HAMAR 572

26. Dramatics in the High Schools, 1900-1925 . PAUL KOZELKA 595

27. Professional Theatre Schools in the Early Twentieth Century 617

FRE1> C. BLANCH AUD

28. National Theatre Organizations and Theatre Education , 641

WILLIAM P. HALSTEAD AND CLABA BEHRINCER
INDEX . 675

PART I
The Heritage

JL English Backgrounds of Rhetoric

WILBUR SAMUEL HOWELL

The present volume aims to describe America's experience in edu-
cating citizens for the duties of oral communication. This experience is
part of the history of education in the new world; it is also a com-
mentary upon our cultural and political history in every period of our
development from colonial community to continental nation. Several
articles in the ensuing pages will examine the various theories that have
guided American educators in preparing students to speak in public.
Still other articles will discuss that strange phenomenon, the "elocu-
tionary" movement in Britain and America during the nineteenth
century. Still other articles will explore American contributions to
phonetics and lexicography; American experiments with theatre arts
as an academic study; American interest in intercollegiate debating;
and American regard for the college literary and forensic society as the
nurse of future statesmen, educators, lawyers, preachers. The reader
of these pages will encounter names already well known to him: John
Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence, who was
professor of rhetorical studies in eighteenth-century Princeton, and who
lectured on eloquence to James Madison and a generation that was to
give us our present nation; John Quincy Adams, sixth president of the
United States, who as first Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory
at Harvard brought to his students a gifted revaluation of the rhetorical
teachings of Cicero and Quintilian; Woodrow Wilson, who coached
debating teams at Princeton during his career as professor of politics.
There are other famous names in these pages, Noah Webster and
Henry Ward Beecher, for example, not to mention men and women
prominent as public readers, lecturers, actors, and teachers of dra-
matics. These and many others will receive attention here, as their
part in the development of rhetorical education in America is noticed.

My purpose in this first essay of the present volume is to describe

6 THE HERITAGE

show his enduring regard for eloquence as the product of these five
faculties:

Well then, ... to praise eloquence, to set forth its power and the honours
which it brings to those who have it, is not my present purpose, nor is it nec-
essary. However, this one thing I venture to affirm without fear of contradic-
tion, that whether it is a product of rules and theory, or a technique depend-
ent on practice, or on natural gifts, it is one attainment amongst all others of
unique difficulty. For of the five elements of which, as we say, it is made up,
each one is in its own right a great art. One may guess therefore what power
is inherent in an art made up of five great arts, and what difficulty it presents.4

An art made up of five great arts— this is the Ciceronian thesis about
rhetoric. The most thorough commentary in classical Roman times upon
these five arts, as treated by Cicero and many lesser writers, is Quin-
tilian's Institutio Oratoria, a work of great scholarship and genuine
human interest. These five arts in Cicero and Quintilian have an
elaborate subject matter, which cannot at this time be explained. Some
of this subject matter will become apparent as my discussion proceeds.
Most of it will have to be treated here in round terms, if space is to be
conserved for the main topics of this essay. It may for the moment be
sufficient to say that the first of these terms, Invention, stands for the
processes of analysis by which the speaker finds material for his
speeches, whereas the second term, Arrangement, means the processes
of synthesis or combination by which material is put into order for
presentation. The other terms, Style, Memory, and Delivery, have a
more obvious application to the speaker's total problem, and they need
not be made the subject of special explanation now.

Many English rhetorics in the period of my present discussion recog-
nize these five terms of Ciceronian rhetoric as the major heads of the
theory of communication. Other English rhetorics recognize three or
four of these terms. Whenever these terms or a majority of them are
mentioned by Englishmen as the basic concepts of rhetorical theory,
and are then treated in such a way as to stress the priority of Invention
above the others, the rhetoric thus created becomes Ciceronian in the
present sense in which I am using the word.

This Ciceronian pattern of English rhetoric begins historically with
Alcuin, the first Englishman to compose a rhetorical work with Cicero's
five procedures explicitly enumerated and discussed in the traditional
way. Alcuin was born in the year 735, the date of Bede's death, and he
was educated in England under scholars who had known and admired
Bede. The fame of the new English learning, to which Bede had greatly
contributed, was recognized throughout Europe during the eighth cen-
tury; so recognized, indeed, that Alcuin was invited at length to France

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 7

by Charlemagne, and there given the task of establishing a system of
education for the emerging French nation. Alcuin's De Rhetorica, com-
posed in Latin in the year 794 as a dialogue between himself and his
royal patron, is one of the works he produced in carrying out his educa-
tional mission; 5 another is his De Dialectica, the first work by an Eng-
lishman on that subject.

Alcuin's De Rhetorica devotes most of its space to Invention, which
Cicero had considered to be of overwhelming importance to oratory.
Ciceronian Invention, as I suggested above, is the process by which a
speaker analyzes his subject and thus determines the subject matter of his
speech. This process involves several steps. One step consists in decid-
ing whether the prospective speech is to be Ceremonial, Deliberative, or
Forensic; this decision teaches the speaker whether to emphasize honor,
expediency, or justice in his speech, and once he knows which of these
to emphasize, he has some of the subject matter he needs. Another step
consists in placing his prospective subject within one of the nine pos-
tures or positions that controversies occupy, to the end that he may use
the lines of argument naturally available in that particular position.
These nine positions cannot here be explained; but they involve the
Latin concept of constitutio or status, and are in rhetorical theory
equivalent to the concept of topics or places in dialectical theory as ex-
pounded in Cicero's Topics and Aristotle's similar work.6 The third step
in the process of devising subject matter for a speech consists in think-
ing of possible materials to be used in getting attention during the Intro-
duction, and of possible materials to be used in each one of the other
five standard parts of the classical oration. Now these three steps involve
the largest part of Cicero's theory of rhetorical Invention; and Alcuin's
De Rhetorica covers the subject of Invention in the same terms.

Alcuin gives almost no space to Arrangement, the second of the con-
ventional topics, thanks to the fact that in Ciceronian theory Invention
covers part of Arrangement by dealing with the six standard parts of
the oration, and Style covers another part by dealing with the ordering
of words in sentences. As for Style, Alcuin speaks of it in such fashion
as to indicate only a fraction of that part of Ciceronian theory, but,
even so, Style ranks next after Invention in the amount of space he
devotes to it. He gives none of the lore of Memory as set forth in such
works as the Rhetorica ad Herennium; he merely quotes Cicero's defini-
tion of it as given in De Oratore, and warns that it is improved by exer-
cise and harmed by drunkenness. To Delivery, the fifth part of the
Ciceronian system, Alcuin devotes about half as much space as he had
given to Style. Thereafter he ends the dialogue by speaking briefly of
the four cardinal virtues in relation to the Christian concept of love.

Alcuin's De Rhetorica is not merely a treatise based upon Cicero. It

8 THE HERITAGE

is rather an abridged edition of De Inventions, so far as its treatment of
the first part of rhetoric is concerned; and a mosaic of phrases from De
Oratore and Orator, so far as the other parts are concerned. These
phrases from the two latter works probably came to Alcuin from Julius
Victor, a rhetorician of the fourth century A. r»., whose Ars Rhetorica
bases itself more broadly in Ciceronian theory than does Alcuin s Da
Rhetorical Despite his unwillingness to venture away from his sources,
Alcuin deserves credit for his skilful summary of the important parts
of the ancient scheme. His De Khetorica is an attractive little work,
quite apart from the interest it holds as the first statement by an Eng-
lishman of the five procedures of Cicero's theory of communication.

"With the death of Alcuin," remarks Atkins, "the tradition of learn-
ing in England underwent a prolonged eclipse." B This observation
applies with particular force to Ciceronian rhetoric, for it was several
centuries after Alcuin that interest in the five procedures began to
reassert itself. In fact, this interest does not seem to reappear among
English writers until the early thirteenth century, when Geoffrey of
Vinsauf used Cicero's terms as the basis of his Poetrw Nova.0 We shall
have occasion later to examine Geoffrey's use of these terms in poetical
theory when we discuss Stephen Hawes' The Pastime of Pleasure, a
poetical work of the early sixteenth century, which also treats the art of
poetry as a manifestation of Ciceronian rhetoric. Hawes is the first
Englishman to make his own language deliver Cicero's five terms. This
fact may remind us of the acceptance of English in the fourteenth cen-
tury as the official medium of instruction in Britain 10-a development
which hastened the rise of vernacular learning.

Before we reach the sixteenth century and the complete vernaculari-
zation of Ciceronian rhetoric, a Latin work in Cicero's idiom should be
mentioned as part of the history of rhetoric in England, even though its
author was an Italian. This work, usually called the $[ova Rhetorica, has
the distinction of being the first work on ^rhetoric ever to be printed in
England. It appeared at Caxton s~"press in "Westmin^ter-dbotrt 1479;
another edition dated 1480 bears the imprint of St. Albans, and is
regarded as no doubt the first book to be printed at that press by
Caxton's contemporary, "the Schoolmaster Printer."11

The Nova Rhetorica is the work of Lorenzo Guglielmo Traversagni
Traversagni was descended from a wealthy and noble family in Savona,
Italy, and became a member of the Franciscan order in that town at the
age of twenty. He received instruction and the title of doctor from his
teachers at the monastery, one of whom was Francesco dalla Rovere,
later Pope Sixtus IV. His active years were spent as a traveling scholar:
he studied logic, philosophy, theology, and canon law at Padua and
Bologna; he later lectured on theology at Cambridge, Paris, and Tou-

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 9

louse. It was during his sojourn at Cambridge that he composed his
Nova Rhetorica; in fact, he tells us at the conclusion of that work of his
having finished it July 6, 1478, at Cambridge. At that time he was fifty-
six years of age. His teaching career in foreign parts ended at Toulouse
when he was seventy. Thereafter he lived at the Franciscan monastery
in his native Savona, where he spent his last years writing, teaching,
collecting books, and bestowing benefactions upon his cloister. He died
March 5, 1503, at the age of eighty-one, leaving behind many works in
manuscript, and one published work, the Nova Rhetorical

The Nova Rhetorica is thoroughly Ciceronian in the sense in which
that term is here being used. It contains an introduction and three books
of doctrine. The introduction recalls the benefit, the splendor, and the
glory conferred in past time upon wise men and great commonwealths
by copiousness in speaking. The following books treat the five topics of
Cicero's rhetoric, In Book I Invention is discussed as it pertains to the
conventional six parts of the Forensic oration; and in the first pages of
Book II, as it pertains to Deliberative and Ceremonial speaking. The
topic of Arrangement occupies the closing pages of Book II. The final
book is devoted mainly to Style, although Memory and Delivery are
each given more than a merely perfunctory recognition. A student of
English rhetoric describes the Nova Rhetorica as "scholastic in tone,
with frequent reference to the fathers of the Church, as St. Bernard, St.
Anselm, St. Basil, Beda, etc."13 This remark applies particularly to
Traversagnfs analysis of Style, where by mentioning the fathers and
by making frequent quotations from the Bible, he indicates the special
applicability of pagan rhetoric to preaching.

Traversagni uses the terms of Ciceronian rhetoric in Cicero's native
language, as Alcuin had done. Six years after Traversagnfs death, those
terms spoke English for the first time. As I mentioned before, the
responsible agent in this development was Stephen Hawes* Pastime of
Pleasure, an attractive allegory of learning written in verse and pub-
lished in 1509.14 The Pastime is modeled upon an earlier verse allegory
in English, The Court of Sapience, which Hawes himself believed to be
the work of Lydgate,15 and which had been published by Caxton
around 1481. There are two interesting differences between the treat-
ment of rhetoric in the Court and in the Pastime, despite the influence
of the former upon the latter. The Court devotes only six seven-line
stanzas to rhetoric, whereas the Pastime devotes to that subject ninety-
two seven-line stanzas; and the Court discusses rhetoric in stylistic
terms, referring the reader meanwhile to Balbus de Janua's Catholicon
and Geoffrey of Vinsauf s Poetria Nova for further information, where-
as the Pastime discusses rhetoric in terms of the five procedures of the
Ciceronian tradition, and uses the Poetria Nova for material relating to

10 THE HERITAGE

those terms. Thus the Court; stands as the earliest English version of the
philosophy behind stylistic rhetoric, and will be referred to again when
I discuss that pattern. The Pastime, however, can claim to be the earliest
version in English of the basic pattern which Alcuin and Traversagni
had followed.

The Pastime, which runs to 5816 lines of verse arranged into forty-six
chapters or cantos, tells the story of the poet, La Graunde Arnoure, in
quest of a beautiful lady, La Bell Pucell. The quest requires the poet to
visit the Tower of Doctrine and the Tower of Chivalry on his way to
the Tower Perilous, where dwells the lady. In the Tower of Doctrine he
receives essential preparation for his quest in the form of instruction
in the seven liberal arts, third of which is rhetoric. Lady "Rethoryke"
instructs the poet in her art and with dramatic propriety gives him the
sort of instruction that more befits the poet than the orator. Neverthe-
less, she explains her subject as if Cicero were outlining the steps in
oratorical composition.16

First she speaks of "inuencyon." This she describes as the product of
five faculties: common wit, imagination, fantasy, judgment, memory.
Her description of these faculties does not depend upon anything from
the accepted explanation of rhetorical Invention as set forth, for
example, by Alcuin; for she is bent upon making rhetorical theory help
in the composition of poetry as well as prose, or of poetry more than
prose. Still, she keeps the name of rhetoric, and she sets forth the first
division of her subject under the term sanctioned by Cicero.

The second division of her subject she calls "dysposycyon." Here she
speaks of ways to organize narrative and argumentative compositions.
Narratio is a standard part of the classical oration described in Cicero-
nian rhetoric, and the theory of narratio in oratory is applicable to poetry.
Thus Lady "Rethoryke" is not outside Ciceronian rhetoric on this topic,
although her emphasis is not upon oratory.

Her third topic is "elocucyon." She begins this as if she were going to
enumerate and discuss the schemes and tropes of oratorical style; but
she soon deserts this line of procedure and speaks instead of the theory
of interpreting fables and figures so as to perceive the essential truth
conveyed in them. Thus Style becomes for her the art of interpreting
poetic fictions, not the art of clothing in language the arguments and
persuasions of oratory.

"Pronuncyacyon," her next topic, is interesting as perhaps the first
theory of oral reading or oral interpretation in the English language.
She is thinking of the poet reciting his poems, not of the orator deliver-
ing a speech, and she proceeds accordingly.

Her final topic is "memoratyf e." The theory of memory, as set forth in
the Rhetorica ad Herennium and usually mentioned and discussed in

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 11

other works of the Ciceronian rhetorical tradition, involved the notion
that the speaker could remember his speech by associating its ideas with
a system of images of his own choosing, and by visualizing those images
as arranged in a system of localities or places familiar to himself. Lady
"Rethoryke" explains this ancient theory by suggesting that the "ora-
ture" associate the tales he wants to remember with appropriate images,
and envisage those images as arranged within his leathern wallet. Her
words are:

Yf to the orature many a sundry tale
One after other treatably be tolde
Than sundry ymages in his closed male
Eche for a mater he doth than well holde
Lyke to the tale he doth than so beholde
And inwarde a recapytulacyon
Of eche ymage the moralyzacyon. . . ,17

So does Lady "Rethoryke" combine the terms of Ciceronian rhetoric
with the requirements of a poet's profession, as Geoffrey of Vinsauf had
no doubt taught her to do by the Poetria Nova, and as the Rhetorica ad
Herennium had in turn taught Geoffrey to do, when he decided to
analyze the problem of poetic communication.

In his pioneering essay on sixteenth-century English rhetorics prefixed
to his edition of Leonard Cox's The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke, Fred-
eric Ives Carpenter implies that Caxton's translation of the Mirrour of
the World is perhaps the first printed account of Cicero's five terms to
appear in English.18 The Mirrour appeared first around 1481, and in a
second edition around 1490. If either of these editions had contained a
discussion of rhetoric in Cicero's five terms, Carpenter's implication
would be perfectly justified. But the discussion of rhetoric in the two
fifteenth-century editions of the Mirrour amounts only to fifteen lines
in Oliver H. Prior's reprint of those works/9 and those lines are devoted
to general comments on the relation between rhetoric and the moral
and political sciences. It is in the third edition of the Mirrour that the
account of rhetoric is expanded to include brief passages on "inuen-
cion," "disposicion," and "eloquens," followed by some few comments
on Memory and Delivery. These are the passages noticed by Carpenter;
but they appeared first in print around 1527, and by that time Hawes'
Pastime had been issued in its second edition. Caxton's Mirrour must
be relegated to second place in numbering the appearances of Cicero-
nian rhetoric in English versions.

In third place belongs Leonard Cox's The Arte or Crafte of Rhe-
thoryke, although in a sense it is first, for it is the earliest rhetorical
schoolbook published in English, and it is the earliest systematic
attempt to acquaint English readers with the original rhetorical con-

12 THE HERITAGE

tent of the Ciceronian concept of Invention. Cox's Rhethoryke ap-
peared in its first edition in London around 1529, and in its second
edition at the same place in 1532.

At that time. Cox was a schoolmaster at Reading. As he himself
informs us, he had been thinking long and hard on a way to occupy
himself in the service of his patron, the Abbot Hugh Faringdon. He
finally had decided, he says, that it would be best for young students if
he wrote "some proper worke of the ryght pleasaunt and parsuadyble
arte of Rhetoryke." 20 He envisaged rhetoric, he goes on, as "very nec-
essary to all suche as wyll eyther be aduocates and proctoures in the
lawe, or els apte to be sente in theyr prynces Ambassades or to be techars
of goddes worde in suche maner as maye be moste sensible and accepte
to their audience: And finally to all them that haue any thynge to
prepose or to speke afore any company e, what someuer they be." ~l He
believed, he adds, that there was "no scyence that is les taught." 22
Then he proceeds to remark upon the faults in a society unschooled in
rhetoric.

In brief, Cox finds three such faults. First is rude utterance, which,
when prevalent in legal speaking, impairs the client's cause. Second is
inept disposition in sermons; this has the effect of confounding the
hearer's memory. Great tediousness in discourse is third. Cox implies
that this is very common, and that it arises from the speaker's lack of
invention, order, and proper style. He adds that it ends in driving
hearers away or putting them to sleep.

The remedy for these shortcomings, Cox implies, can be provided by
proper instruction in rhetoric. His treatise, which, as he declares, is
"partely traunslatyd out of a werke of Rhethoryke wrytten in the lattyn
tongue, and partely compyled of myne owne," 23 provides that instruc-
tion. Incidentally, one Latin source acknowledged by Cox himself in his
treatise is Cicero's De Inuentione.2* But, as Carpenter was the first
to point out, Cox's real source is the Institutiones Rhetoricae of
Melanchthon,25

Melanchthon's Institutiones Rhetoricae partitions rhetoric under the
topics of Invention, Judgment, Disposition, and Style.26 Now the second
of these terms seems out of place in a treatise on Ciceronian rhetoric as
I have been describing it. Ii^ actual fact, however, the term is not so
much out of place as unnecessary. It appears to have come to Melanch-
thon from dialectical theory. In dialectical theory, as standardized by
Cicero's Topics from Aristotle's similar work, there are two main topics,
Invention and Judgment,27 roughly parallel in intent to the first two
procedures of Ciceronian rhetoric. It is never surprising when pieces
of the machinery of dialectical invention and judgment turn up in
treatises on rhetoric by disciples of Cicero. In fact, we shall observe later

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 13

that pieces of the machinery of dialectical invention appear in Thomas
Wilson's Arte of Rhetorique. Melanchthon's use of the word Judgment
as a main process in rhetoric seems to be merely an illustration that a
piece of the machinery of dialectical disposition has turned up where
it does not belong if the concept of arrangement is meanwhile being
recognized.

Cox defines rhetoric as having the four procedures enumerated by
Melanchthon.28 He limits himself to Invention, however, commenting
both at the beginning and end of his work that Invention is the hard-
est of the four to master.29 He takes the trouble to point out, moreover,
that in thus limiting himself he has "folowed the facion of Tully who
made a seuerall werke of inuencion." 30 Actually, of course, he treats
Invention by speaking of it as in part the process of finding material
for the divisions of the oration, with the result that his treatise, like
Cicero's, covers Arrangement as well as Invention, despite its seeming
limitation to the latter topic.

Cox mentions in a letter dated May 23, 1540, that he is planning a
work on rhetoric to be called the Erotemata Rhetorical1 Possibly that
would have been more complete than his Rhethoryke; possibly also it
would have been a further translation from Melanchthon, since Cox's
projected title suggests his desire to identify his work with the latter,
who had entitled one of his works the Erotemata Dialeatices. But Cox's
second work on rhetoric appears never to have been published.

Next after Cox's Rhethoryke in the sequence of English versions of
Ciceronian theory is Thomas Wilson's The Arte of Rhetorique, the
greatest work in this tradition by an Englishman. Wilson produces a
systematic, learned, and lively account of each of the five procedures of
Cicero's theory of oratory. To Invention he devotes 68 per cent of his
total space; to Arrangement, a little less than 2 per cent; to Style, slightly
more than 21 per cent; to Memory, about 4 per cent; and to Delivery,
about 2 per cent. These proportions are not greatly different from those
in the Rhetorica ad Herennium, which gives 43 per cent of its space to
inventio, 2 per cent to dispositio, 45 per cent to elocutio, 6 per cent to
memoria, and 4 per cent to pronuntiatio.

In his study of the sources of Wilson's Rhetorique, Russell H. Wagner
states that the Rhetorica ad Herennium, doubtless considered by Wilson
to be Cicero's, was one of Wilson's chief authorities, and that Wilson
also went to Erasmus "for leading ideals, for detailed matter, and for
examples and critical dicta"; Wagner indicates, moreover, that Wilson
draws to some extent upon Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria, upon
Cicero's De Inventione, De Oratore, De Partitions Oratoria, and Brutus,
and possibly also upon Cox's Rhethoryke.32 To these sources I would
want to add Kidbard Sherry's A Treatise of Schemes and Tropes, which

14 THE HERITAGE

I shall discuss later as the first treatise in English on the actual terms
of what is here being called stylistic rhetoric. Wilson relies upon Sherry
for English phraseology or for illustrations in his discussion of the three
kinds of style, in his definition of figure, of scheme, of gradatio, and in
his clarification of such stylistic concepts as aptness, metaphor, me-
tonymy, transumption, periphrasis, epenthesis, syncope, proparalepsis,
apocope, extenuatio, and dissolutum.33

"The finding out of apt matter, called otherwise Inuention, is a search-
ing out of things true, or things likely, the which may reasonablie set
forth a matter, and make it appeare probable." 34 With these words
Wilson opens his discussion of the first part of Ciceronian rhetoric. He
adds at once, "The places of Logique, giue good occasion to finde out
plentiful! matter." These places, as set forth in Wilson's Rule of Reason,
the first logic in English, are sixteen in number. They constitute in the
aggregate a machinery for the analysis of dialectical questions, even as
the nine positions of argument, to which reference was made in the
discussion of Alcuin's De Rhetorica, constitute a machinery of analysis
for rhetorical questions. Now Wilson does not expect the reader of his
Rhetorique to make use of all sixteen of the places of logic in conduct-
ing a rhetorical analysis of a subject. He indicates instead that six of
them are particularly helpful to the orator,\and he enumerates those
six.35 In addition, he sets forth the nine positions associated traditionally
with rhetoric, and discusses them.36 Thus his discussion of Invention in
rhetoric overlaps his discussion of Invention in dialectic— an untidiness
that Ramus was at that very moment condemning as it had appeared in
continental rhetorics earlier in the sixteenth century.

Wilson also permits his discussion of Arrangement to overlap Inven-
tion. Under Invention, as Cicero had sanctioned, Wilson discusses the
standard parts of the classical oration, and the materials appropriate to
each.37 Thus when he comes to Arrangement, where the parts of the
oration might logically be discussed, he sees that he has already said
most of what is needed for this topic. He contents himself with a sum-
mary of what he had discussed as he spoke of the parts of the oration,
and with a bit of advice on the necessity for constant discretion in
arranging materials for audiences.38

This brief discussion of Wilson's Rhetorique will have to suffice at
this time. It does scant justice to a work of ingenuity, good sense, and
learning. It also does not even suggest how far Wilson went in natural-
izing Ciceronian theory, and in giving it an English habitation and a
name. It does not indicate how seriously WiJ^o^lpoked at the English
bar and pulpit of his tim^, ^ixd how vigorously "Be strdye ,to make
Ciceronian rhetoric applicable to their problems. Nor does it comment
upon J/Vilson's analysis of the ancient memory system ^ devised with

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 15

special reference to oratory and explained in essential terms in the
Rhetorica ad Herennium. Wilson gives this oddity o£ Roman times a
noteworthy treatment and thus anglicizes it more completely than
Hawes had done in the Pastime of Pleasure. Wilson also gives Style a
noteworthy treatment as the third part of rhetoric. His famous protest
against the use of dark words and "ynkehorne termes" 39 occurs in this
part of his treatise. Style he defines attractively as follows: "Elocution
getteth words to set forth inuention, and with such beautie commendeth
the matter, that reason semeth to be clad in Purple, walking afore both
bare and naked/' 40 The true heads of his subsequent discussion are
"Plainnesse," "Aptnesse," "Composition," "Exornation"; 41 and his anal-
ysis of each is much more than a perfunctory attempt to get Latin ideas
into English. These and many other special points of distinction make
Wilson's Rhetorique one of the great books in its field, and are reasons
why I regret the brevity of this review of it.

Beginning in 1553, when it was first published in London, Wilson's
Rhetorique enjoyed great popularity for an entire generation. It
appeared in a second edition in 1560, in a third in 1562, in a fourth
in 1563, and in a fifth in 1567. Then for a while there seems to have
been a slackening market for it. But after a lapse of thirteen years,
successive reprintings again occurred in 1580, 1584, and 1585. 42 By that
time, the first English translation of the main terms of Ramistic rhetoric
had just appeared, and Ramus' famous Dialecticae Libri Duo had been
available in an English translation for eleven years. Thus the absence
of interest in Thomas Wilson's Rhetorique after 1585 may be explained
by the rise of interest in Ramus9 reformed version of Ciceronian rhetori-
cal and dialectical theory.

Thirty-six years after Wilson's Rhetorique had had what appears to
be its last sixteenth-century edition, the tradition which it had so well
represented was again revived. Its revival occurred in textbooks writ-
ten in Latin for students in the public schools. Thus the circulation of
the theory of Ciceronian rhetoric was confined in the early seventeenth
century to the younger segment of the population of England, and to
the atmosphere of the classroom and the study hall. Wilson had had
more ambitious plans for his work, as anyone who reads it will notice.

The first seventeenth-century textbook devoted to the revival of
Ciceronian rhetoric was written by Thomas Vicars and published at
London in 1621 under a Greek and Latin title, the xsipaycoyta Manv-
dvctio ad Artem Rhetoricam, that is, Guide to the Art of Rhetoric. In
its first edition the Guide contained an enumeration and discussion of
the five main procedures of Ciceronian rhetoric. A later edition dated
1628 at London adds a second book in which selected Ciceronian ora-
tions are analyzed according to the terms of the five procedures as set

16 THE HERITAGE

forth in Book I. The difference between the two parts of this 1628 work
is indicated as that between the genesis of the oration and its analysis.
The difference between rhetoric and logic is stated on the title page in
a conceit based upon Zeno's ancient epigram: "Rhetorica est palmac
similis, Dialectica pugno; Haec pugnat, palmam sed tamen ilia rcfert/* *3

Two other Latin rhetorical handbooks appeared soon after that of
Vicars. One was Thomas Farnaby's Index Rhetoricus, first published at
London in 1625, and reprinted many times in the seventeenth century. It
limits itself on its title page to the schools and to the instructing of those
of the tenderer ages; its doctrine is set forth in terms of four of Cicero's
five procedures, Memory being omitted altogether. Similar to it is
William Pemble's Enchiridion Omtorium, that is, Oratorical Manual,
published at Oxford in 1633,—except that Pemble limits himself to
Invention and Arrangement, after recognizing rhetoric to consist of
these two parts and Style and Delivery as well.44

Thus the Ciceronian rhetorical tradition was in being at the time of
Harvard's first Commencement, even if it had tended after the great
work of Thomas Wilson to be eclipsed by Ramistic rhetoric and to be
revived later in the form of Latin manuals for schoolboys. Let us now
examine the second pattern of English rhetoric, called here the stylistic,
to see what had happened to it during the period between the seventh
and the seventeenth century.

Ill

Stylistic rhetoric as a recognizable and distinctive tradition in rhetor-
ical theory in England has two main characteristics. First of all, it is
openly committed to the doctrine of Style as the most important part
of the five-part scheme just discussed. Secondly, it is openly mindful
that Invention, Arrangement, Memory, and Delivery, or combinations
of two or more of these other parts of rhetoric, are also legitimate topics
in the full rhetorical discipline. Readers of Cicero's Orator will recall
that its major emphasis is upon Style, although it gives some degree of
recognition to the other parts of rhetoric.45 Thus the Orator is impor-
tant as a source book in the history of stylistic rhetoric, although the
fourth book of the Rhetorica ad Herennium, the third book of Cicero's
De Oratore, and the eighth and ninth books of Quintilian's Institutio
Oratoria all contain a full treatment of Style as the verbal aspect of the
speaker's total problem, and all are sources of this or that work in the
post-classical development of the rhetoric I am now describing.

The first treatise by an Englishman in the field of stylistic rhetoric is
tie Venerable Bede's Liber de Schematibw et Tropis^ Bede is pre-
sumed to have written this work in 701 or 702.47 His immediate sources

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETOKIC 17

are chapters 36 and 37 of Book I of Isidore's Etymologiaef8 where Isi-
dore is discussing grammar on his way to a treatment of rhetoric and
dialectic in Book II.49 The fact that Bede's treatise on the schemes and
tropes is taken from Isidore's De Grammatica rather than from his De
Rhetorica might lead one to suppose that Bede is not to be classed
among rhetoricians but among grammarians. Indeed, Halm admits
Bede's Liber with great reluctance to a place in his collection of minor
Latin rhetorics, saying that he would willingly have left it out if his
plan did not seem to require him to accept all the items previously
allowed within that particular tradition.50 In other words. Halm seems
embarrassed by the nonrhetorical content of the Liber and by the
uncritical acceptance of that work as a rhetoric by his predecessors,
Pithou and Capperonnier, both of whom had included it in their Antiqui
Rhetores Latini. But students of the history of rhetoric have to accustom
themselves not to be embarrassed when a given rhetoric contains
material that appears elsewhere in grammars or dialectics. They have to
learn to argue that, if Bede's definitions of the schemes and tropes
come from a treatise on grammar by Isidore, and if Isidore in turn got
those definitions in part from the grammars of Donatus and Charisius,
one can nevertheless find the same materials in such still older works
as the Rhetorica ad Herennium and the Institutio Oratoria. Thus Bede's
Liber need not occasion apologies when we accept it among stylistic
ihetorics.

The method followed by Bede in treating the schemes and tropes is
simple: he enumerates seventeen schemes; he defines each and illus-
trates it from the Bible, except in one case, where his example is from
the Christian poet Sedulius 51; then he enumerates thirteen tropes,
defining each later and illustrating again from the Bible. His guiding
conception of these two big divisions of Style is clearly indicated in his
opening words:

On many occasions in writings it is customary for the sake of elegance that
the order of words as they are formulated should be contrived in some other
way than that adhered to by the people in their speech. These contrivances
the Greek grammarians call schemes, whereas we may rightly term them
attire or form or figure, because through them as a distinct method speech
may be dressed up and adorned. On other occasions, it is customary for a
locution called trope to be devised. This is done by changing a word from its
proper signification to an unaccustomed but similar case on account of ne-
cessity or adornment. And indeed the Greeks pride themselves upon having
been the discoverers of such schemes and tropes.52

Bede does not deal with any other topics of the complete Ciceronian
doctrine of style, nor does he specifically recognize in his Liber that
Style is only one of the five parts of rhetoric. But he surely was well

18 THE HERITAGE

acquainted with the five-part division of Ciceronian rhetorical theory.
He probably did not have any of Cicero's rhetorical writings in his own
library, but he did of course have Isidore's Etijinologiae9*A and Isidore
lists the five conventional parts of rhetorical theory in his own treatise
on rhetoric a few pages beyond his disquisition on the schemes and
tropes.

Stylistic rhetoric appears to have been the most popular form of rhe-
torical theory in England between the eighth and the fifteenth century.
Space does not permit us to examine here the various Latin writings
on this subject by Englishmen. A few representative authors should,
however, be mentioned. One of the foremost is John of Salisbury, whose
Metalogicon, as Atkins has observed, deals with rhetoric less as a matter
of Invention and Arrangement than of Style.54 Another is Geoffrey of
Vinsauf. His Poetria Nova, as I indicated earlier, recognizes the five
procedures of Ciceronian rhetoric and thus belongs to my first category;
but his Summa de Coloribus Rhetoricis is plainly in the stylistic tradi-
tion.55 Still another medieval Latin work in this tradition by an English-
man is John of Garland's Exempla Honestae Vitae, which Atkins
describes as "a text-book treating of the use of the rhetorical figures/' 5fl
These are all works in a class with Bede's Liber, and they were pro-
duced at a time when the full Ciceronian theory of rhetoric was being
little used, except by Geoffrey of Vinsauf as the framework for a treatise
on poetry.

The first printed English account of the stylistic aspect of rhetoric
occurred around 1481 with the publication at Caxton's press in West-
minster of a learned poetic allegory, The Court of Sapience,*7 to which
I have already made brief reference as awork which influenced Hawes
and was attributed by Hawes to John Lydgate. Modern scholarship
doubts that Lydgate wrote the Court, but not that Hawes imitated it.
As I said of it earlier, however, its treatment of rhetoric is briefer than
that in Hawes' work, and more in the stylistic tradition.

The Court recounts the poet's dream of a journey under the guidance
of Sapience, The final stages of the journey take the poet to the castle of
Sapience, where he visits the seven ladies, that is, the seven liberal arts.
Six seven-line stanzas are devoted to "Dame Rethoryke, Modyr of Elo-
quence/' or as a Latin headnote has it, to a "breuis tractatus de Rethor-
ica." 5S This brief tractate does not consist in an enumeration of the
schemes and tropes. But it does characterize Dame Rhetoric as if her
chief concern were the stylistic aspects of composition, Thus the func-
tion of rhetoric is described as that of teaching what vices in style to
avoid, what gay colors are included in the rhetorician's knowledge of
his craft, what differences there are among these colors, what properties
they have, how each thing declared may be painted, what distinctions

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 19

exist between "coma, colon, periodus," 59 and what works may be con-
sulted for information about the colors. Cicero is called "The chosyn
spowse vnto thys lady fre"; in his works is found "Thys gyltyd craft of
glory"; other authors who would teach of the colors are "Galfryde" and
"Januense," that is, Geoffrey of Vinsauf and Balbus de Janua, the latter
of whom is mentioned especially for the fourth book of his Catholicon.60
It is specifically indicated that the springs of eloquence are in sound
knowledge of the Code, the three Digests, the books of law and of
natural philosophy—a recognition, of course, of the underlying impor-
tance of Invention in the theory of discourse. The closing stanza gives
Dame Rhetoric jurisdiction over "prose and metyr," and lists those who
have excelled in each of these forms.

It was almost seventy years after the first edition of the Court, when
the sixteenth century had reached its midpoint, that the schemes and
tropes of the stylistic tradition appeared jor the first time in the English
language. The work which features them thus is Richard Sherry's A
Treatise of Schemes and Tropes, published at London in 1550.^5sTEave
already indicated, this work influenced the phraseology and illustrations
of Thomas Wilson's treatment of Style in his famous Rhetorique pub-
lished three years later, as one pioneering work is likely to influence
another if the later author has access to the earlier.

Sherry realized that his work was something new in the English
literary tradition— that it had no vernacular prototype. In fact, his dedi-
catory epistle "To the ryght worshypful Master Thomas Brooke Es-
quire" anticipates a public reaction made up of initial bewilderment:

I doubt not but that the title of this treatise all straunge vnto our Englyshe
eares, wil cause some men at the fyrst syghte to maruayle what the matter of
it should meaner yea, and peraduenture if they be rashe of iudgement, to cal
it some newe fangle, and so casting it hastily from them, wil not once vouch
safe to reade it: and if they do, yet perceiuynge nothing to be therin that
pleaseth their phansy, wyl count it but a tryfle, and a tale of Robynhoode.61

"These words, Scheme and Trope" he goes on, "are not vsed in our Eng-
lishe tongue, neither bene they Englyshe wordes." 62 I got acquainted
with them, he says later, when I read them to others in Latin ( Sherry
was a schoolmaster in Magdalene College school in Oxford from 1534
to 1540); and, he declares, since they helped me very much in the
exposition of good authors, "I was so muche the more ready to make
them speak English." 63 He wants them to speak English, moreover,
because the English language is being enriched, English literature is
becoming famous, and English learning needs these terms. It needs
them especially because "no lerned nacion hath there bene but y
learned in it haue written of schemes & fygures, which thei wold not
haue don, except thei had perceyued the valewe." 64

20 THE HERITAGE

On three occasions Slierry makes it plain that he is dealing with Style,
not as the only part of rhetoric, but as the third part in the traditional
Ciceronian pattern. The first occasion arises when he reminds serious
readers that it is their obligation to know the schemes and tropes:

For thys darre I saye, no eloquente wryter roaye be perceiued as he shuldc
be, wythoute the knowledge of them: for asmuche as al togethers they be-
longe to Eloquucion, whyche is the thyrde and pryncipall parte of rhctori-
que.65

The second occasion arises when he has finished his dedicatory letter
and is about to begin his treatise. The following headnote at this point
carries us into the text:

Schemes and Tropes. A briefe note of eloqucio, the third parte of Rhetoricke,
wherunto all Figures and Tropes be referied.66

On the third occasion, Sherry mentions explicitly two of the other pro-
cedures of Ciceronian rhetoric that lie adjacent to style. Tully and
Quintilian, he says at this point, thought that Invention and Arrange-
ment were marks of prudence and wit in any kind of composition, but
that Style was the peculiar mark of the orator as man of eloquence.07
As for the theory behind the schemes and tropes. Sherry takes the
same position that Bede had taken: that there is a normal, plain, and
ordinary way of speaking, used among the populace, and an unusual,
uncommon, extraordinary way, used among the elegant and educated.
This latter way is described by the schemes and the tropes, taken collec-
tively. These contrivances amount to all possible extraordinary patterns
of language which men can devise as a system of substitutes for pedes-
trian, everyday patterns. Here are Sherry's key definitions:

Scheme is a Greke worde, and signifyeth properlye the manor of gesture
that daunsers vse to make, when they haue won the best game, but by trans-
lacion is taken for the fourme, fashion, and shape of anye thynge expressed in
wryrynge or payntinge; and is taken here now of vs for the fashion of a word,
sayynge, or sentence, otherwyse wrytten or spoken then after the vulgar and
comen vsage, . . ,68

Fygtire, of Scheme y fyrst part, is a behaueoure, maner, or fashion, cythcr
of sentence, oracion, or wordes after some new wyse, other then men do
commenlye vse to wryte or speake . . . ,69

Emonge authors manye tymes vnder the name of figures, Tropes also be
comprehended: Neuerthelesse ther is a notable difference betwixt them* In
figure is no alteracion in the wordes from their proper significacions, but only
is the oracion and sentence made by them more plesaunt, sharpe and vehe-
ment, after y affeccion of him that speketih. or writeth: to y which vse although
tropes also do serue, yet properlye be they so called, because in them for
necessitye or garnyshynge, there is a mouynge and chaungynge of a wordc
and sentence, from theyr owne significacion into another, whych may agre
wyth it by a similitude.70

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 21

A change from the common pattern— this, then, is the concept behind
the schemes and the tropes. Thus if one says, "I was berattled/' instead
of "I was rattled," he has changed the common pattern of a word with-
out changing its literal meaning, and the scheme thus created is called
Prosthesis or Appositio.71 The purpose of this scheme is to call strong
attention to one's thought (or one's self) by adding some unusual ele-
ment to a familiar pattern. Now if one says, "I have but lately tasted
the Hebrew tongue," he has taken the word taste from its routine orbit
and transferred it to a different but analogous orbit, with the result that
the change thus produced, which constitutes a trope called Metaphora,
also calls memorable attention to one's thought.72

It would be suggestive to speculate upon a theory of communication
which emphasizes that true excellence is achieved only by a departure
from the natural pattern of everyday speech. That theory would appear
to be congenial to a society in which the holders of power and privilege
are hereditary aristocrats, who do not have to use speech to gain any-
thing for themselves. In such a society, the commoners, who do have to
use speech as one of their instruments in the quest for privilege, would
consider that the unusual pattern of communication might impress the
aristocrat and distinguish the commoners from the herd. Perhaps con-
siderations like these explain the enormous popularity of the schemes
and tropes as an element in education in the sixteenth century.

Sherry's treatment of the schemes and tropes is orderly and thor-
ough. I shall not have time, however, to comment further upon it here.
It might be mentioned as I leave it that Sherry is quite explicit about
the sources upon which his work is based. He speaks in his dedicatory
letter of having prepared himself for his present task by reading sundry
treatises, some written long ago, and some in his own day.73 He declares
that these he did not translate but drew upon.74 From the authors
explicitly mentioned by him then and later, it would appear that he
places primary reliance upon such modern works as Rudolphus Agri-
cola's De Inuentione Dialectica, Petrus Mosellanus' Tabulae de Schema-
tibus et Tropis, Thomas Linacre's Rudimentes Grammatices, and Eras-
mus' De Duplid Copia Verborum ac Rerum; whereas for the ancients
he goes to Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria, to Cicero's Orator, De Ora-
tore? and De Partitione Oratoria, and to Aristotle's Topics and Rhetoric.

Sherry uses at one point in his Treatise the image of a man getting
true pleasure from a goodly garden garnished with flowers only when
he knows the names and properties of what he sees therein.75 This
image may have suggested something to Ek^^ At any rate,

Peacharn published ^at London in 1577 a^lvorTT^^ as

Sh^ry's entitle fThe ^Garden of EZcRj^^ of

Grammerand Rhetoric^. 'lliS'worlc !F2a6re"ScEeiisive than the one just

22 THE HERITAGE

discussed, more extensive, too/ than Sherry's revised edition of 1555,
published at London as A Treatise of the Figures of Grammar and
Rhetorike 76; and it represents English stylistic rhetoric in full maturity.

Now, the Garden of Eloquence draws heavily upon Sherry's earlier
work, particularly upon the first edition. Space does not permit me to
set forth passages in Peacham that have a counterpart in Sherry. The
reader who wishes to assure himself of the similarity between Sherry's
edition of 1550 and Peacham's work might compare the discussion of
Expolition in the one treatise with that in the other.77 As for the simi-
larity between Sherry's revised edition and Peacharn's work, the reader
might compare what the former and what the latter say about Parti-
tion.78 These resemblances indicate, of course, that Peacham and Sherry
are in the same rhetorical tradition, and must be considered together.
But the one thing that brings them finally together, and dissociates them
forever from the Ramists, who were then coming into fashion, is that
Sherry and Peacham treat the schemes and tropes as in part the con-
"cera of grammar and in part the concern of rhetoric, whereas the
Ramists, as we shall see, insisted that grammar and rhetoric must not
be allowed to overlap, and that the schemes and tropes belonged only
to rhetoric.

Two other stylistic rhetorics in the tradition of Sherry and Peacham
were composed in the last decade of the sixteenth century. Incidentally,
a second edition of Peacham appeared in 1593, and may be taken as
evidence of the continuing interest in his elaborate work. But a more
popular work in his field appeared at London in 1592 with the publica-
tion of a new and augmented edition of Angel Day's The English
Secretorie. This enlarged edition of a work which had first come out
six years before contained a treatise on the tropes, figures, and schemes.
Day is no Ramist; he allows the schemes to be shared by grammar as
well as by rhetoric. But for those who wanted the tropes and figures
without the special context and treatment required by the Ramists,
Day's work was as good as any other, and it continued to be reprinted
during the next forty-five years.

The last stylistic rhetoric to require mention here is John Hoskins"
DirectionsTfor Speech and Style. This work is believed to have been
composed in the year 1599; portions of it were embedded in Ben Jonson's
Timber (1641), and a large part of it was printed without acknowledg-
ment in Thomas Blounfs Academie of Eloquence ( 1654 ) and in John
Smith's Mysterie of Rhetorique UnvaiTd (1657); but it did not achieve
an edition under its own author's name until 1935, when the late Pro-
fessor Hoyt H. Hudson brought it out in company with an excellent
introduction and notes.79 Like other rhetoricians in the stylistic tradi-
tion, Hoskins emphasizes the tropes and figures; but he does not do so

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 23

in the manner of the Ramists, for they would not permit recognition of
Invention and Disposition as parts of rhetoric, whereas Hoskins cheer-
fully begins with a nod at these two procedures. Hoskins might have
been expected to be a Ramist, too; Talaeus, Ramus' close collaborator,
and Sturm, the teacher of Ramus, are the only two modern authorities
whom he names in the list of authors used by him as sources.80

In the period between 1599 and 1642, four successive editions of
Angel Day's English Secretorie testify to the continuing interest of
Englishmen in stylistic rhetoric. But the tropes and figures, as a main
ingredient of that rhetoric, had meanwhile been appropriated by the
Ramists, as I have already suggested, and as I shall have occasion later
to discuss. Thus at the time of the first Commencement at Harvard,
only an acute observer, aware of the history of rhetoric during the hun-
dred years just past, would have been able to disentangle the old
stylistic rhetoric from the newer Ramistic rhetoric and to explain the
differences between them. But the fact is that, even if the old stylistic
rhetoric of Bede, Sherry, and Peacham had merged with Ramistic
rhetoric by 1642, the stylistic tradition itself in its substantive aspect
was at that date still very much alive, thanks to the special help it had
had from the Ramists.

The formulary pattern of English rhetoric before 1642 has to be men-
tioned by any historian of early rhetorical theory in England who is
striving to tell his story completely. Yet that historian also has to
acknowledge that of all segments of the English theory of communica-
tion, f orjooilary rltetorie-was1 the least popular, so far, at any rate, as the
sixteenth and- early seventeenth century are concerned.

In essence, for^rmlary, rhetoric in the period now under consideration
is illustrated by those works which consist of a series of model compo-
sitions or model parts of compositions for guiding students in the prac-
tice of communication.

Rhetorical education has always rested upon the assumption that
practice in communication is necessary for the development of pro-
ficiency, and that practice must involve experience with the typical
patterns of communication in civilized life. Sometimes rhetorical prac-
tice is regulated in the classroom by the study of models, sometimes by
the study of rhetorical theory, and occasionally by the whims and
vagaries of instructor or student. This third method of regulation is
usually permitted only in education as a private venture or in public
education at the higher levels of instruction. The second method of
regulation, where the study of theory accompanies practice, is perhaps

24 THE HERITAGE

the most widely used of all methods on the middle and upper levels
of the educational process. The patterns of theory which I am explain-
ing in this paper are all relevant to this second method. The first
method, that of regulating practice by the study of models, is usually
most popular on the lower levels of instruction or in the elementary
phases of the mastery of the act of communication. Thus formulary
rhetorics, which implement this method, ordinarily envisage the school-
boy as their reader, and ordinarily involve rhetorical theory only so far
as a few basic terms are necessary in giving directions for schoolboy
practice.

Formulary rhetoric is of course a part of the two streams of rhetorical
theory just discussed. Thomas Wilson's Rhetorique? for example, con-
tains model compositions to illustrate the theory of such standard com-
munications as the deliberative discourse, the letter of consolation, and
the legal argument.81 The same impulse to provide models in connec-
tion with theoretical terms is shown by Richard Sherry, who attaches to
his Treatise of Schemes and Tropes a "declamacion of a briefe theme,
by Erasmus of Roterodame." S2

Formulary rhetoric as an entity by itself begins to be a vernacular
development in England in the second quarter of the sixteenth century.
At first, however, it is a thing of shreds and patches, not a full-grown
pattern. Its beginnings are found in several popular collections of
passages from the classics as published at English presses: Nicholas
Udall's translation of excerpts from Terence, called Flovres for Latin®
Spekynge (London, 1533); Richard Taverners translation of selections
from the Apophthegmata of Erasmus, called The Garden of Wysdoni
(London, 1539); the same Taverners translations from the Chiliades of
Erasmus, called Prouerbes or Adagies (London, 1539). These collec-
tions, however, are more in the nature of commonplace books than of
formulary rhetorics. Their interest is centered in the thoughts conveyed
by the passages they contain, not in the rhetorical forms illustrated by
those passages. Moreover, they were probably often used as reference
books by preachers and writers in search of classical utterances on
common topics, and thus they would be more of a guide to the content
than to the method of a given discourse. The true formulary rhetoric
differs from them in having its interest centered in rhetorical forms, and
in having its selections cover a variety of occasions for discourse.

The firstjuilj^j.eveloed formular rhetoric to appear in English, and
teFi^^

the teFi^^ in the period -here under dis-

cussion/fs'TRfcIiard RainolMs , Potm^ This work,

as "Professor Johnson has shown, is mainly an EfrigBst adaptation of
Reinhard Lorich's Latin version of Aphthonius* Progymnasmata.84
Aphthonius is one of the three great names in the field of ancient formu-

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 25

lary rhetoric, the others being Theon and Hermogenes,85 Theon is
supposed to have lived in the first half of the second century A. D.; Her-
mogenes, in the second half of the same century; and Aphthonius, to-
wards the end of the fourth century. Not Aphthonius alone, but all of
them, composed works called Progymnasmata for rhetorical instruc-
tion.86

Rainolde, like Sherry, sees himself as a pioneer in his particular field.
But it is Wilson and not Sherry to whom he refers as he speaks in his
preface "To the Reader" of himself as innovator. He begins this preface
with mention of Aphthonius and Hermogenes, among others. He then
says that he has prepared the present work "because as yet the verie
grounde of Rhetorike, is not heretofore intreated of, as concernyng these
exercises, though in fewe yeres past, a learned woorke of Rhetorike is
compiled and made in the Englishe toungue, of one, who floweth in all
excellencie of arte, who in iudgement is profounde, in wisedome and
eloquence moste famous."

Rainolde's method of procedure in his work is to provide orations
upon the typical patterns of discourse. Before he does this, however, he
makes a few introductory comments. His distinction between logic and
rhetoric follows that in Thomas Wilson's The Rule of Reason and
amounts, as Wilson's had, to an expansion of Zeno's epigram about
logic being the closed fist and rhetoric the open hand.87 Few, he ob-
serves, possess both of these arts to perfection; those who do are most
noble and excellent. He names the famous orators of Greece and Rome,
and after some comment upon them he returns to Demosthenes, whom
he recalls as having once framed an oration upon a fable.88 This leads
him to define fables, to distinguish three types of them, and to comment
upon their use by orators and poets.89 He mentions Bishop Morton as
vising a fable of Aesop to answer his jailer, Buckingham; also Bishop
Fisher as using one in a speech in Parliament.90 Then he indicates that
an oration may be made upon a fable, and upon the following other
patterns: a Narration, a Chria, a Sentence, a Refutation, a Proof, a
Commonplace, a Praising, a Dispraising, a Comparison, an Ethopeia,
a Description, a Thesis, and a Law.91 Making orations upon these
patterns, he goes on, is called "of the Grekes Progimnasmata, of the
Latines, profitable introduccions, or fore exercises, to attain greater arte

and knowlege in Rhetorike ?> 92 "Therefore," he adds, "I title this

booke, to bee the foundacio of Rhetorike, the exercises being Progim-
nasmata" 9S

The exercises which follow are model speeches upon each of the
fourteen patterns previously enumerated. There are two speeches to
illustrate the Fable; five to illustrate Narration; and one to illustrate
each of the other patterns, Some of the model speeches run to

26 THE HEBITAGE

nine or ten pages; others, to six or eight; the shortest, to a half -page.
Each model is preceded by comments on the composition of that par-
ticular form. Also, most models are divided into clearly marked sec-
tions or parts. The speech to illustrate Refutation, for example, is on the
subject, "It is not like to be true, that is said of the battaill of Troie," 9 *
and it is divided into six parts. The first censures all poets as liars; the
second states Homer's theory of the cause of the Trojan war; the third
reduces that theory to a matter of doubt; the fourth, to an incredibility;
the fifth, to an impossibility and an unlikelihood; and the sixth, makes
out Homer's explanation of the cause of the war to be an unseemly and
unprofitable notion.

Rainolde's Foundation, published in 1563, appears not to have had
a second edition until 1945, the date of Professor Johnson's facsimile
reprint. Nevertheless, interest in formulary rhetoric did not completely
disappear in England during the closing years of the sixteenth century.
Angel Day's The English Secretorie, already mentioned as a stylistic
rhetoric of the fifteen-nineties, is also a formulary rhetoric by virtue of
the fact that it contains specimens of the various kinds of letters
expected of a practicing secretary. Two other works of the last decade
of the sixteenth century must likewise be remembered as collections of
exercises for speakers and writers. One of these works is Anthony
Mundy^s The Defence of Contraries ( London, 1593 ) ; the other, Lazarus
Piot's The Orator (London, 1596).

Mundy's Defence of Contraries, which declares itself in the preface
to be designed to show lawyers how to assemble proofs in support of
causes ordinarily considered indefensible, contains twelve declamations
on themes antagonistic to common opinion. In the first declamation,
poverty is held to be better than riches; in the second, beauty is proved
inferior to ugliness; in the third, ignorance is given a higher rating than
knowledge; in the seventh, drunkenness is declared better than sobriety;
and so on. Following the index of contents at the end of the work is "A
Table of such Paradoxes, as are handled in the Second Volume, which
vpon the good acceptation of this first Booke, shall the sooner be pub-
lished." The fourteenth and last declamation in this projected volume
promises to uphold the thesis "that a Lawyer is a most profitable mem-
ber in a Commonwealth." Apparently, however, Mundy never added
these fourteen declamations to his original twelve. The entire group of
twenty-six paradoxes, as Mundy knew them, were in a work published
at Paris in 1553 under the title, Paradoxes, ce sont propos contre la
comune opinion, debatus en forme de declamations foreses: pour exer-
citer les jeunes aduocats en causes diffidles. But Mundy may not have
known that this French, work was a translation* by Charles Estienne of
twenty-six of the thirty declamations which had been originally com-

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 27

posed in Italian by Ortensio Landi and published at Lyons in 1543 as
Paradossi cio£ sententie fuori del comun parere.

Lazarus Piot's The Orator, like Mundy's Defence of Contraries, is an
importation from abroad. Its title page indicates that it was "written in
French by Alexander Siluayn, and Englished by L. P." Siluayn turns out
to be Alexandre van den Busche; the French work in question turns out
to be Epitomes de Cent Histoires Tragicques; and "L. P." is identified in
the dedicatory letter of The Orator as Lazarus Piot. Until recently,
scholarship has considered Piot to be Anthony Mundy, and The Orator
to be an expansion of the Defence of Contraries, But in actual fact, as
Celeste Turner has shown in her Anthony Mundy An Elizabethan Man
of Letters, Piot was a literary rival of Mundy in the field of translating,
and The Orator does not bear the slightest relation to the Defence of
Contraries, except that both works are formulary rhetorics. Piot's The
Orator contains a preface "To the Reader" introducing his hundred
"Rhethoricall Declamations," and asserting that their use by "euery
member in our Commonweale, is as necessary, as the abuse of wilfull
ignorance is odious." He then specifies the readers whom he wants for
his declamations: "If thou studie law, they may helpe thy pleadings, or
i£ diuinitie (the reformer of law) they may perfect they [sic] persua-
sions. In reasoning of priuate debates, here maiest thou find apt meta-
phors, in incouraging thy souldiours fit motiues." The hundred declama-
tions that make up Piot's collection are organized thus: the number
and title of the declamation are first given; then in italic type is a
brief statement of its occasion; then in roman type is the declamation in
two parts, one part being the speech made in accusation, the other, the
speech made in reply. Declamation 95 will serve to illustrate how the
two speeches relate to each other in every one of the exercises. In the
first speech of this Declamation, a Jew contests a judicial ruling that he
must on pain of death take no more or no less than an exact pound of
flesh as bond for the debt which a Christian had not paid on the proper
date. The other speech, by the Christian, claims that the original bond
should not be required because of his present willingness to pay the
debt in money. Declamation 95 is of interest to Shakespearean scholars,
some of whom suggest that Shakespeare derived hints from it for his
famous scene in The Merchant of Venice, and that the earliest possible
date of composition of that play may thus be fixed at 1596, when Piot's
The Orator was published.

In the forty-six years between 1596 and 1642, formulary rhetorics in
the tradition of Rainolde, Mundy, and Piot appear to have gained more
of a foothold in English secondary education than they had been able
to do previously. I shall enumerate the chief works in this growing
movement towards the use of the rhetorical model, although the dis~

28 THE HERITAGE

cussion of them must await another occasion. Perhaps first in time was
John Clarke's Transitionum Rhetoricarum Formulae, in Usitm Schola-
rwn (London, 1628). But the same author's Formulae Qratoriae, which
had reached a fourth edition by 1632, appears to have been the most
influential work in the field of formulary rhetoric in the period before
the first Commencement at Harvard. Thomas Farnaby's Index Rhdori-
cus, already mentioned in connection with the revival of interest in
Ciceronian rhetoric during the first half of the seventeenth century,
should now be listed among formulary rhetorics of that period; for by
1638 the Index had acquired a section of "Formulae Oratoriae" to go
with its exposition of four of the topics of Cicero's theory. The third and
last of the formulary rhetorics to require mention here is Thomas
Home's xsipocycoyioc sive Manuductio in Aedem Palladis (London,
1641 ) . This little book of 175 pages of text contains a general introduc-
tion on reading and writing, a series of rhetorical precepts, and a con-
cluding section of "Exemplaria." It would seem to be the final illustra-
tion of formulary rhetoric in the period under survey here.

Between 1584 .and- 1642, the Ramistic pattern of rhetoric and of dia-
lectic constituted the dominant theory of communication in England;
arid of all the theories under discussion here, it is the one which the first
graduating class at Harvard understood best. We shall see later why it
can be confidently asserted that that first graduating class understood
best the Ramistic theory of communication. Just now it is more to the
point to observe that Ramistic rhetoric and dialectic, so much a matter
of intimate knowledge on the part of the educated Englishman of the
period of Marlowe, Shakespeare, and Jonson, became obsolete at the
end of the seventeenth century, and dropped out of sight altogether,
with the result that even historians of literary theory did not until
recently begin to recognize how important Ramus' version of these two
arts was in its own time.95

Tl^R§i»isMe-*iieorj qf, ppiOTiunication means two things. It means
firstTIiat the three liberal arts^ grammar, rlietoric? tod dialectic, are
severely dep^rbueatalized., and separated one from another so that
materials formerly claimed by two of them are mad6 flie exclusive and
fin^l property of on$ or the other. It means secondly that each, of these
liberal arts is Arranged, for the reader pr student $o that he encounters
first tEe definition of title art he is mastering^ thea ar statement dividing
it into jtwo >mw parts, f^en 0 treatise on one of those parts, and then a
treat^e on the other, each maiii part being divided and subdivided in
its turn until finally the foundation terms and illustrations are set fortk

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 29

The first of these characteristics of Ramism can be seen in any Ramis-
tic grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric of the period under discussion here.
A Ramistic^grarAinar is always divided into two parts, Etymology and
Syntax. A Ramistic didgctjfe is always divided into two parts, Invention
and Arrangement. A Ramistic rhetoric is always divided into two parts.
Style and Delivery. Never, as in the old stylistic pattern of English
rhetoric, did the Ramists permit tropes and figures to be classed as
grammatical and rhetorical, for that kind of thinking suggested an
untidy duplication between grammar and rhetoric, as if distinctions had
become blurred and confused. Never, as in the system of scholastic
learning, did the Ramists permit rhetoricians to write upon Invention
and Arrangement, since that would mean a duplication between their
art and dialectic, which, as we noticed earlier, also claimed Invention
and Arrangement as its own. Never, as in the old Ciceronian theory of
rhetoric, did the Ramists allow the theory of the parts of an oration to
be covered under the topic of Invention, since that would sanction a
theft by Invention of materials belonging properly to the topic of
Arrangement.

The second of the two main characteristics of Ramism is also obvious
in treatises on the three liberal arts in the late sixteenth and early
seventeenth century. The best place to look for an illustration of this
characteristic is in Ramus* own Dialectique, which was published at
Paris in 1555 as his French version of the system also stated in his
Dialecticae Libri Duo (Paris, 1556). The text proper of the Dialectique
begins with a definition: Dialectic^isjhe^^^ Next

comes a brief comment on tmV3efinition, with citations from Plato and
Aristotle. Next comes the partition: Dialectic has two parts, Invention
and Arrangement. Each of these terms is at once defined, the defini-
tions crisply discussed, and the lines of difference between them estab-
lished. Invention is then made to assume the duty of explaining what
arguments are and where they dwell. Arguments are then classified
as artificial or inartificial; artificial arguments are divided into the
primary and the derivative primary; primary arguments are at once
given four species; the first species is at once given four aspects. Now,
these four aspects constitute the first cluster of Ramus' foundation
terms. By this time we have reached page 6 of a treatise which runs to
140 pages, and Ramus' analysis of the forms of argument is ready to
begin. The rest of this work is as severely schematized as the part I have
just described. Divisions of material are always enumerated with mathe-
matical precision; transitions are always marked, although abruptly,
and without grace; illustrations for each basic term appear with the
regularity of the refrain at the end of stanzas of a song.

These two characteristics of Ramism are derived from laws which

30 THE HERITAGE

Ranrus thought to be the great controlling principles of the philosophy
of learning. He applied these principles in the first instance to the rela-
tions between subject and predicate in any given logical proposition,06
because of course the logical proposition was the form in which knowl-
edge got itself expressed, and thus the laws governing those proposi-
tions were in reality the very determinants of knowledge. But as time
went on, these principles came to be applied to the relations between
one statement and another in a given structure of statements. In this
latter environment these principles are customarily called by the
Ramists the law of justice, the law of truth, and the law of wisdom.97

The law of justice is perhaps best explained as a prohibition against
allowing a learned treatise to deal with more than one field of knowl-
edge. Thus if the subject of a treatise is logic, no statements belonging
to rhetoric or grammar should be made therein. The law of truth is a
prohibition against allowing a learned treatise to contain statements
only partly true or true only on occasion. A statement on dialectic in a
treatise on dialectic, for example, must not be subject to exceptions or
to occasional applications to other disciplines. The law of wisdom is a
prohibition against allowing a learned treatise to be a disorderly mixture
of general principles, particular statements, and specific cases. Defini-
tions, which by nature are general, belong, that is, on one plane, Parti-
tions on a lower, Subdivisions on a still lower, and so on.

Roland Macllmaine, first Briton to translate Ramus' dialectical theory
into English, prefaced that work with an "Epistle to the Reader/' in
which he shows the exuberance of the Ramists as they contemplated
the workings of their master's three rules upon Aristotelian dialectic
and upon what I have been calling here the Ciceronian theory of rheto-
ric. My little book, says Macllmaine, contains all the logical doctrine
to be found anywhere in Aristotle, and all the logical doctrine to be
found anywhere in Cicero or Quintilian.08 Here are the words used by
Macllmaine to describe how the application of Ramus* three rules to
the logical and rhetorical writings of these three great ancients will
result in a reformed dialectic or logic:

Take the forenamed bookes, and with thy rule of Justice gene to euery
arte his owne, and surely if my iudgement dothe not farre deceaue me, thou
must geue some thing to the Arte of Grammer, some thing to Rethoricke,
some thing to the fower mathematical! artes, Arithemeticke, Geometric,
Astrologie and Musicke, some thing also (althoughe but litle) to Phisicke,
naturall Philosophic, and diuinitie. And yet all that is in these bookes (only
the fore said digressions excepted) dothe appartaine eyther to the inuention
of Logicke, or els to the iudgemente. Now gather togeather that wich re-
mainethe, after euery arte hathe receiued his owne, and see if there be any
false, ambiguous or vncertein thing amongest it, and yf there be (as in dede
there is some) take thy documente of veritie, and put out all suche sophis-

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 31

ticall speakinges. And last perceiue if all thinges be handled according to
their nature, the generall generallye, and the particuler particulerlie, if not,
take thy rule of wysdome, and do according as the third documente teach-
ethe thee: abolyshe all tautalogies and vayne repetitions, and so thus muche
being done, thou shalt comprehende the rest into a litle rome."

Now, Ramus' reformed rhetoric, which began on the assumption that
Invention and Arrangement belonged to dialectic, and continued on the
assumption that Style and Delivery were purely and properly rhetorical,
was written out by his good friend and colleague, Audomarus Talaeus,
as I indicated earlier. Talaeus' rhetorical system, published at Paris in
1544 as the Institutiones Oratoriae, and later as the Rhetorica, accepts
explicitly these two assumptions of Ramus,100 and proceeds to reduce
Style as the first part of the new rhetoric to Tropes and Figures, whereas
Delivery, the second part of the new rhetoric, is made to consist of
Voice and Gesture. In this form the rhetorical aspect of Ramus' theory
of communication was introduced into England.

The story of Ramus' influence upon English rhetoric has already been
sketched in another place,101 and only a few points need be repeated
here. One is that, after Macllmaine gave Ramus' Dialecticae Libri Duo
its first Latin edition on English soil in 1574, and its first English trans-
lation that same year, Ciceronian rhetoric went into an eclipse in Eng-
land for a half-century, its ancient procedures being carried on in part
by Ramistic dialectic and in part by Ramistic rhetoric.102 Another point
to be remembered is that many other Englishmen besides Macllmaine
had an important role in making the Ramistic theory of communication
popular in England before 1642. Chief among these are Dudley Fenner,
Abraham Fraunce, Charles Butler, Samuel Wotton, Thomas Spencer,
Alexander Richardson, Robert Fage, and John Barton.

Dudley Fenner's importance lies in the fact that his Artes of Logike
and Rethorike, published anonymously at a continental press in Mid-
delburg in 1584, and in a second edition under Fenner's name at the
same place four years later, is the first one-volume English translation
of the main heads both of Ramus' Dialecticae Libri Duo and Talaeus'
Rhetorica. Fenner does not acknowledge his work as a translation of
these two authors, an indication, no doubt, that, to all of his contem-
poraries at all interested in logic and rhetoric, such an acknowledgment
would be superfluous.

Abraham Fraunce is important as the second English translator of
the main heads of both the Dialecticae Libri Duo and the Rhetorica.
Unlike Fenner, however, Fraunce published his translations separately,
the first as The Lawiers Logike (London, 1588), and the other at the
same place and in the same year as The Arcadian Rhetorike.™* The
Arcadian Rhetorike differs in two ways at least from Fenner's similar

32 THE HERITAGE

work: it translates the major points of Talaeus' doctrine of Delivery,
whereas Fenner had not; and it provides its illustrations from among
standard classical and modern authors, including Sidney, whereas
Fenner had found his illustrations in the Bible. The Lawiers Logike
also differs from Fenner s similar work in placing a heavy emphasis not
only upon the relation between logic and law but also upon the exposi-
tion of leading points of Ramistic doctrine.

Charles Butler is an important figure in the history of Ramistic rhe-
toric on two counts. First, his Rhetoricae Libri Duo, first published in
1597, 10i carried Ramistic rhetoric into the public schools of England,
and enjoyed a phenomenal success, being still mentioned as a popular
book in 1659.105 Secondly, his Oratoriae Libri Duo, first published at
Oxford in 1629, pays a handsome tribute to Ramus' reform of the liberal
arts, and at the same time proceeds to violate one of the cardinal tenets
of that reform by offering a theory of Invention, Arrangement, and
Memory, as if the first two of these terms were no longer the exclusive
property of logic.100 Butler's tribute to Ramus occurs as he is making
ready to adapt to the needs of oratory Ramus' doctrine of the places of
dialectical Invention. Says he:

These brief and methodical precepts concerning the places or kinds of argu-
ments are supplied from Peter Ramus, whose singular acuteness in rebuilding
the Arts I am never able to admire enough; and they are not so much as-
sembled in part as adopted in full. Except some in Ramus are brought forth
somewhat differently here, to the end that they may be adapted to the use
of oratory. But not of course in any wrong sense. For whatever cannot be set
forth in a better fashion, why should it be made worse by change? 10T

When Butler uttered these words in 1629, he apparently was not aware
that fifty-five years before a good English Ramist would have con-
sidered it improper to treat the places of Invention anywhere but in a
treatise on dialectic. In fact, Roland Macllmaine? whose enthusiasm ior
Rarnism has already been noticed, said in the prefatory "Epistle to the
Reader" accompanying his translation of 1574 that any learned writer
must avoid the very thing Butler later did. MacIImaine's words are:

Is he not worthie to be mocked of all men, that purposetlie to wryte of
Grammer, and in euery other chapiter mynglethe something of Logfcke, and
some thing of Hethoricke: and contrarie when he purposetlie to write of
Logicke dothe speake of Grammer and Rethoricke.108

Samuel Wotton, Thomas Spencer, and Robert Page are worthy of
mention in a history of Ramism in England because each of them pub-
lished a translation of Ramus' Dialecticae Libri Duo in the six years
between 1626 and 1632, when interest in that work appears to have
been especially strong.100 Alexander Richardson is of importance for his

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 33

English commentary on Ramistic dialectic, published at London in 1629
as The Logicians School-Master: or, A Comment vpon Ramvs Logicke.
John Barton is of importance because his Art of Rhetorick Concisely
and Compleatly Handled, which appeared at London in 1634, is thor-
oughly Ramistic in its treatment of rhetoric, even though Barton shows
some tendency in his preface, "To the Reader/' to question whether
Style and Delivery are the only concerns of rhetorical theory.110 Barton
opens the actual text of his treatise with the following words:

Rhetorick is the skill of using daintie words, and comely deliverie, whereby
to work upon mens affections. It hath two parts, Adornation and Action.111

Thereafter Barton discusses Adornation as an exclusive product of the
tropes and figures, whereas Action is to him a matter of gesture and
utterance. The English text of his work runs to thirty-five pages, after
which is a Latin translation of it, entitled "Rhetorices Enchiridion."

Barton's Art of Rhetorick is the last example of Ramistic theory to
receive consideration here, where I am limiting myself to the period
before Harvard's first Commencement. Ramistic Jheory^ still had vitality
by 1642, and it was to exercise a contirnTfng influence upon English
rhetoric during the remainder of the seventeenth century. But forces
were beginning to work against it by 1642y and they were ultimately to
make it look obsolete, even a? at first it had made Ciceronian rhetoric
look cumbersome, redundant, and medieval. One of the forces working
against Ramism in the latter part of the sixteen-hundreds had been set
in motion by the publication of Francis Bacon's philosophical writings
in the early years of that very century, and to that author we must now
turn for a rhetorical theory that stands as a counterpoise to the existing
theories of its time.

Francis Bacon's complete theory of rhetoric exists in passages scat-
tered throughout his many works. I shall not attempt here to recon-
struct that theory, because in the first place I would not have room to
do so, and in the second place that very subject has already received
a full measure of attention and an able treatment by Professor Karl
Wallace.112 What I shall do here is to confine myself to the Advance-
ment of Learning, which between 1605 and 1642 received at English
presses four editions in English and one in Latin 113; and to show that
Bacon's ejcdlent jliscussto^ only

anTipress reaction to stylistic, Ciceronian^ J: orrrmlary, ,and Ramistic
i-fijpf pric^ fmt also an indication oTa~new future for ffie^^ciy.dE com-

34 THE HERITAGE

Stylistic rhetoric, with its preponderant emphasis upon the third part
of the Ciceronian program, and with its delight in enumerating the
tropes and figures as standard ways in which verbal expression could
depart from the ordinary patterns of speech, receives attention in Book
I of the Advancement of Learning, where Bacon is speaking of the three
diseases which had beset learning in the preceding century. One of
these diseases Bacon calls "delicate learning,"— learning that strives for
"vain affectations." 114 This particular disease turns out in Bacon's
description to be an excessive addiction to stylistic rhetoric.

Bacon explains the origin of this malady of culture by saying that
Martin Luther, as a member of the party of reform in his own time, had
summoned ancient authors to bear witness against that time, and thus
had encouraged an exact study of the language of those authors, and "a
delight in their manner of style and phrase." lir> Meanwhile, the old
party, the schoolmen, "whose writings were altogether in a differing
style and form," 116 had offered opposition to the new party. The peo-
ple, who were the prize of war in the struggle between the two parties,
and whom both parties were bent upon winning and persuading, caused
the development of a type of eloquence in which variety of discourse
was thought "the fittest and forciblest access into the capacity of the
vulgar sort." 11T What Bacon adds at this point may be quoted to show
that these pressures led to the partial eclipse of the rhetoric of Inven-
tion and Arrangement and to the overemphasis upon the rhetoric of
Style:

So that these four causes concurring, the admiration of ancient authors, the
hate of the schoolmen, the exact study of languages, and the efficacy of
preaching, did bring in an affectionate study of eloquence and copie of
speech, which then began to flourish. This grew speedily to an excess; for
men began to hunt more after words than matter; and more after the choice-
ness of the phrase, and the round and clean composition of the sentence, and
the sweet falling of the clauses, and the varying and illustration of their works
with tropes and figures, than after the weight of matter, worth of subject,
soundness of argument, life of invention, or depth of judgment, IIB

In the list of authors cited immediately by Bacon to illustrate exces-
sive devotion to the stylistic aspect of communication, we find critics
of Ramism like Ascham, and precursors of Ramism like Sturm, whom
Ramus himself acknowledges as his teacher.110 Thus Bacon's disap-
proval of stylistic rhetoric may be accepted as criticism of the Sherry-
Peacham-Hoskins tradition as well as criticism of Talaeus, Fenner, and
Fraunce. To both traditions the following words of Bacon apply as he
summarizes the first disease of learning:

Here therefore the first distemper of learning, when men study words and not
matter: whereof though I have represented an example of late times, yet it

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 35

hath been and will be secundum majus et minus in all time, ... It seems to
me that Pygmalion's frenzy is a good emblem or portraiture of this vanity:
for words are but the images of matter; and except they have life of reason
and invention, to fall in love with them is all one as to fall in love with a
picture.120

Towards the Ciceronian tradition Bacon shows more respect than he
does towards stylistic rhetoric. As he discusses Natural Philosophy in
Book II of the Advancement of Learning, he speaks of his intention to
use the word Metaphysic in a sense of his own; but he says he hopes
men of judgment will see "that in this and other particulars, whereso-
ever my conception and notion may differ from the ancient, yet I am
studious to keep the ancient terms." 121 Bacon is indeed studious to keep
the ancient terms of Ciceronian rhetoric within his philosophy of
learning. He is also studious, of course, to show wherein his own con-
ceptions differ from the ancient. Thus he gives the five procedures of
Cicero's rhetorical theory a place in learning, not when he speaks of
rhetoric itself, but as he approaches that subject.

These five procedures, condensed into four, appear as he begins his
discussion of the Intellectual Arts. Here are his own words:

The Arts Intellectual are four in number; divided according to the ends
whereunto they are referred, for man's labour is to invent that which is
sought or propounded; or to judge that which is invented; or to retain that
which is judged; or to deliver over that which is retained. So as the arts must
be four; Art of Inquiry or Invention: Art of Examination or Judgment; Art of
Custody or Memory; and Art of Elocution or Tradition.122

A few pages later, Bacon defines "Tradition" as "Delivery"— "the
expressing or transferring our knowledge to others." 123 Thus to him the
terms Style and Delivery of Ciceronian rhetoric become a single term,
Tradition; and Tradition stands for thd process of -communication, to
which grammar, logic, and rhetoric make their distinctive contributions.
At the end of Book I of the Advancement of Learning Bacon speaks of
books under the image of ships which "pass through the vast seas of
time, and make ages so distant to participate of the wisdom, illumina-
tions, and inventions, the one of the other." 124 These books, these com-
munications, are the product of the great Intellectual Art, Tradition;
and, in Bacon's analysis, grammar contributes to Tradition by supply-
ing knowledge of speech and words, logic, by supplying knowledge of
the method of presentation, and rhetoric, by supplying knowledge of
the means by which thoughts may be vividly represented to man's
imagination.125

Before Bacon discusses Tradition as the fourth Intellectual Art, he
speaks of the other three. He finds the first one, Invention, to be defi-
cient so far as it might address itself to a technique by which new

36 THE HERITAGE

knowledge is discovered. He finds it more than sufficient, however, in
respect to speech or argument, although, as he emphasizes, this sort of
invention is not properly invention in the sense of the discovery of
something new, but invention only in the sense of a resummoning of
what we already know.120 He indicates two existing mechanisms for
assisting invention in this latter sense: the promptuaries, and the
topics.127 The promptuaries include the doctrine of positions in Ciceron-
ian rhetoric, and collections of such ready-made devices as speech intro-
ductions.128 The topics are made up of the places of logic.329

Bacon's treatment of Invention may well be the first important rein-
terpretation of the theory of rhetorical invention to be made in the
Christian era. It indicates that the classical theory carries the speaker
back to all the general wisdom which, on the one hand, is relevant to
his subject, and, on the other, is known already. It also indicates that,
good as the classical theory is for its purposes, it cannot give the speaker
new facts about his subject, for these new facts corne only as that sub-
ject is studied in and for itself. Thus Bacon's criticism of Invention may
be taken in historical perspective to suggest the ultimate disappearance
from rhetorical theory of the elaborate Latin doctrine of postures or
positions of argument, and the ultimate emergence in rhetorical theory
of the doctrine that the speaker learns what to say only by the most
conscientious study of the facts of the matter with which his speech
deals.

Bacon's discussion of Judgment and Memory as the second and third
of the Intellectual Arts need not be summarized here. I should only
like to say that, when Bacon speaks of Memory, he shows his knowl-
edge of the memory system I have mentioned before in connection
with my account of Hawes and Wilson.130

When Bacon comes to discuss rhetoric as the third science in the
process of Delivery or Tradition, grammar and logic being, as I have
said, the other two, he begins with these words;

Now we descend to that part which concerneth the Illustration of Tradition,
comprehended in that science which we call Rhetoric, or Art of Eloquence;
a science excellent, and excellently well laboured.131

He then mentions the rhetorics of Aristotle and Cicero as works in
which those writers "exceed themselves." 132 As for his own conception
of this science, his words cut through to the very essentials:

The duty and office of Rhetoric is to apply Reason to Imagination for the
better moving of the will.133

In his ensuing elaboration of this thesis, he says in effect: if speakers
take the truth and state it merely in terms of "naked propositions and

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 37

proofs/' 134 the Reason of man may accept it, and want to follow it; but
the Passions or Affections of man, a rebellious and unruly faculty, may
not accept it as truth, may want to follow something else; in this con-
flict between Reason and the Affections, a victory for the Passions would
be inevitable, "if Eloquence of Persuasions did not practise and win
the Imagination from the Affection's part, and contract a confederacy
between the Reason and Imagination against the Affections." 135 In
other words, Rhetoric becomes the means by which man appeals to
the Imagination, and wins this faculty to the support of Reason, so
that both faculties together can nullify the disruptive effects of the
Passions, and can thus control the Will.

Shot full as it is with the imagery of statecraft and faculty psychology,
this theory of rhetoric nevertheless seems suddenly to reach back
through the centuries to the pre-Ciceronian era, when Plato was dis-
cussing rhetoric in Phaedrus and was analyzing the soul of man under
the figure of the charioteer and the two horses. That Bacon had been
reading Phaedrus before he wrote his account of rhetoric in the Ad-
vancement of Learning is proved by the fact that he quotes that work
shortly after his admiring references to the rhetorics of Cicero and
Aristotle.136 Another proof of the influence of Plato upon Bacon in the
field of rhetoric comes when Bacon suggests that the proofs of rhetoric
must differ according to the auditors, and that this notion "in perfection
of idea, ought to extend so far, that if a man should speak of the same
thing to several persons, he should speak to them all respectively and
several ways"— a suggestion that Plato makes much of in Phaedrus.137
Incidentally, it is this Platonic notion that Bacon recommends for fur-
ther inquiry by the coming generation of rhetoricians.138

Thus far this discussion of Bacon's rhetorical theory has involved an
analysis of his disapproval of stylistic rhetoric, whether in the tradi-
tional or the Ramistic pattern, and an analysis of his wish at once to
preserve and to reinterpret the chief terms of Ciceronian rhetoric. It
has been emphasized that Bacon's reinterpretation of the term Invention
lgoks_toward, although it doeiTTl^ the

doctrine of positions ftttttt rhetorical theory. It has also been indicated
that Bacon^s reinterpfelaffo^qiF Delivery as Elocution or Tradition, and
of rhetoric as the "Illustration of ^f^^a^^ ^fStoies to rhetoric. its
commuriicatLve function and gives it, not by implication butjeroressly,
the task of reaching and persuading" mien. It has also Been shown" that
Baconlt&plcs''ofl'aifuture rfiefptf^^effpMliy tP,ttiie,srtudy^of tibe rela-
^E^k^SS^S^^^^^^^Ji^ audience^^^diQW.?. Let us n'b^bflflfly
examine Bacon's reaction to Ramistic logic and to formulary rhetoric.

Raraus had ponceived of the process of communication as a whole to
which dialectic contributed Invention and Arrangement; and to which

38 THE HEKITAGE

rhetoric contributed Style and Delivery. Moreover, Arrangement was to
Ramus a term which included the whole subject of method in dis-
course. His theory of method was that a learned treatise should be
organized by a procedure of definition, partition, and illustration, with
bipartite divisions of subject matter wherever possible. A popular
treatise, he thought, could be organized less severely, but his followers
tended to slight this aspect of his theory, and to emphasize the other.139
When Bacon comes to discuss method as the second of the three arts
of Tradition or communication, he makes it a part of logic, as Ramus
had done. He says that the subject of method "hath moved a contro-
versy in our time" 14°— an obvious reference to the dispute between
Ramists and the scholastics upon this matter. Then he indicates what
to him is the difference between one sort of communicative method and
the other:

And therefore the most real diversity of method is of method referred to Use,
and method referred to Progression; whereof the one may be termed Magis-
tral, and the other of Probation.141

The first of these methods Bacon explains obliquely as that form of
presentation which is best for making knowledge believed; the second,
as that form of presentation which is best for getting knowledge
examined. He finds this second method to be neglected in his time.142
The first method, which was precisely what Ramus regarded as the
method for the learned treatise, Bacon finds to be misused in the truly
scientific discourse, and to be more appropriate to the teacher.

Thus Bacon differs from Ramus on the question of the method to be
followed in organizing a work of science or learning. litmus wants a
dogmatic method, Bacon a suggestive. But Bacon has one 'further
objection to Ramus' concept of method in communication; he believes
that Ramus' three laws are excellent, but that the application of the law
of wisdom to the learned treatise has produced a "canker of Epitomes/'
and a "uniform method and dichotomies," the result of which has been
that "the kernels and grains of the sciences leap out, and they are left
with nothing in their grasp but the dry and barren husks." 14S

One other difference between Bacon and Ramus should be noted. It
concerns the relation of logic to rhetoric. Whereas Ramus believed these
two arts to be divided in respect to subject matter, so that logic would
always discuss Invention and Arrangement, with rhetoric always lim-
ited to Style and Delivery, Bacon sees the two arts as operating in two
different spheres of communication, one sphere being the world of
learning, the other, the world of practical affairs. Says Bacon:

It appeareth also that Logic differeth from Rhetoric, not only as the fist from
the palm, the one close the other at large; but much more in this, that Logic

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 39

handleth reason exact and in truth, and Rhetoric handleth it as it is planted
in popular opinions and manners. And therefore Aristotle doth wisely place
Rhetoric as between Logic on the one side and moral or civil knowledge on
the other, as participating of both. . . ,144

Bacon closes his account of rhetoric with a note about its present
deficiencies, and it is here that he mentions formulary rhetoric. He had
touched upon it before in his remarks upon Invention, as my discussion
of his attitude toward promptuaries has shown. Now he suggests that a
preparatory store of theses should be made up for the use of speakers
and that a collection of formulas representing introductions, conclu-
sions, digressions, transitions, and excusations should be undertaken.145
Thus h^wants formulary rhetoric enriched, and this enrichment came
later, as we have seen, in the works of Clarke, Farnaby, and Home.

Bacon's rhetorical theory did not replace the theories which had
flourished in England during the sixteenth century. Indeed, as I have
shown, Ciceronian rhetoric was revised by Vicars, Farnaby, and Pemble
in the period between 1620 and 1640; and that was the time when the
Advancement of Learning was being given four separate editions.
Meanwhile, Ramistic rhetoric was merging with the older English
stylistic rhetoric, without loss to the popularity of the tropes and the
figures. And in the same period, formulary rhetoric was being improved
in the direction which Bacon had indicated. But Bacon's theory had
three advantages over its rivals. First, it was stated in a work that
exercised a profound influence upon the intellectual life of the seven-
teenth century. Secondly, it brought to rhetorical theory the stimulating
influence of Plato and Aristotle at a time when traditional English
theory had hardened into perfunctory conventions. Thirdly, it was for-
mulated, not in what Bacon somewhat scornfully terms the Magistral
method, but in what he approvingly calls the method of Probation.
That is to say, it was stated to invite further inquiry rather than to force
assent. In Book I of the Advancement of Learning, Bacon had observed
that "knowledge, while it is in aphorisms and observations, it is in
growth; but when it once is comprehended in exact methods, it may per-
chance be further polished and illustrate, and accommodated for use
and practice; but it increaseth no more in bulk and substance." 146 This
latter method Bacon did not allow to enter into his rhetorical theory.
He fashioned his theory in aphorisms and observations, and so left it
in growth.

How far English rhetoric developed in the seventeenth century to-
wards a new theory of communication is a subject which lies outside
the scope of my present essay. But such a development did take place.
It can be seen taking place in the decision of the Royal Society to keep
out of their scientific writing "these specious Tropes and Figures/' to

40 THE HERITAGE

keep out also "all the amplifications, digressions, and swellings of style,"
and to exact "from all their members, a close, naked, natural way of
speaking." 147 It can be seen taking place in the renewed interest in
Aristotle's Rhetoric among Englishmen during the seventeenth century,
as evidenced especially by Thomas Hobbes' English abridgement of
that work, published about 1637 under the title, A Brief e of the Art of
Rhetorique. It can be seen taking place in Joseph GlanvnTs An Essay
Concerning Preaching, published at London in 1678. And it can be seen
taking place in the interest shown in the first English translation of The
Port Royal Logic in 1685. 14S But these developments occurred after the
first Commencement at Harvard, and thus were not part of the English
record at the time when higher learning began in New England.

VII

On September 23, 1642, Harvard College held her first Commence-
ment and graduated nine young men.149 These young men were more
heavily committed to the Ramistic theory of communication than to
any of the other theories I have discussed. After all, the program of that
first Commencement lists the theses which the graduates were prepared
to defend as a result of their training under Henry Dunster, and the
rhetorical and logical theses on that program are heavily Ramistic. The
twelfth logical thesis, for example, is an invitation to the graduates to
discuss Ramus* three laws: TPraecepta Artium debent esse KCCT&
Tcdvxoq, KocG* a6x6, Koc9* 6Xou Ttpakov." 15° Moreover, in the library
which John Harvard had bequeathed in 1638 to the college subse-
quently named for him, there was a copy of Ramus' Dialecticae Lihri
Duo and Talaeus' Rhetorica—the two works suited before all others to
give those nine first graduates a command of the Ramistic theory of
communication.151 We may be sure that the graduates knew how
Ramus had assigned Invention and Arrangement to dialectic, Style
and Delivery to rhetoric, as part of his program of giving each art what
properly belonged to it under the law of justice. Thus we may also be
sure that the four main terms of Ciceronian rhetoric were familiar to
New England's first college graduates, even if those terms came to them
in the reformed system of Ramus.

But there is a strong likelihood that those terms were also known to
that graduating class from non-Ramistic sources, John Harvard's library
contained the Rhetoricorum Libri Quinque of Georgius TrapezuntiiiSj
a scholar of the fifteenth century; 152 and that work is an excellent and
ample treatise on the five procedures anciently assigned by Cicero to
rhetoric, with definitions of them from the Rhetorica ad Herennium and
De Inventione. Possibly the first graduating class could have learned

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 41

these five procedures directly from Cicero, if trie copy of Cicero's Opera
Omnia in John Harvard's library happened to include the rhetorical
works.153 As for the pre-Ramistic rhetoric of tropes and figures, the
graduates could have mastered that in Henry Peacham's Garden of
Eloquence, a copy of which was in John Harvard's library, possibly as
a relic of his own school days in England.154 John Harvard's library also
contained a copy of the Advancement of Learning,155 and thus the
graduates had access to the new learning and to the rhetorical theory
framed to suit it. It would be strange indeed if by Commencement Day
that year they had not yet read that already famous work. Only the
formulary rhetorics appear not to have been represented in John
Harvard's library, except in such collections of phrases and proverbs as
Grynaeus* Adagia, Draxe's Calliepeia, and Lycosthenes' Apophtheg-
mata.^Q But these rhetorics, of course, would not have assisted dispu-
tants at a college ceremony to examine questions of rhetorical theory.
They would have provided models for practice, and hence would have
been found on a lower level of education than that occupied by the first
graduates of Harvard.

Notes

1. For a representative selection o£ other accounts of English rhetoric in this
period, see the following: E. E. Hale, Jr., "Ideas on Rhetoric in the Sixteenth
Century," PMLA, XVIII (1903), 424-444, R. C. Jebb, "Rhetoric," in The Encyclo-
paedia Rrita>nnica, llth ed.; Donald Lemen Clark, Rhetoric and Poetry in the
Renaissance (New York, 1922); Charles Sears Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and
"Poetic (to 1400) (New York, 1928); William Phillips Sandford, English Theories
of Public Address, 1530-1828 (The Ohio State University, 1929); Lee Sisson
Hultzen, Aristotle's "Rhetoric' in England to 1600, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, 1932; William Garrett Crane, Wit and Rhetoric in the Renais-
sance (New York, 1937); T. W. Baldwin, William Shakspere's Small Latine &
Lesse Greeke (Urbana, 1944), II, 1-68; J. W. H. Atkins, English Literary Criticism:
The Renascence (London, 1947), pp. 66-101.

2. Cicero, De Inventione, 1. 7. 9, trans. H. M. Hubbell (The Loeb Classical
Library, Cambridge, Mass, and London, 1949), pp. 19-21.

3. For indications of Cicero's constant reference to these five major terms, see
De Oratore, 1. 28. 128; 1. 31. 142; 1. 42. 187; 2. 19. 79, 2. 85. 350; see also De
Partitions Oratoria, 1. 3, and Orator, 14. 43-55.

4. Brutus, 6. 25, trans. G. L. Hendrickson (The Loeb Classical Library, Cam-
bridge, Mass, and London, 1939), pp. 35-37.

5. The Latin text and an English translation of this work, formally called
Disputatio de Rhetorica et de Virtutibus Sapientissimi Regis Karli et Albini Magistri,
may be found in Wilbur Samuel Howell, The Rhetoric of Alcuin and Charlemagne
(Princeton, 1941). The Latin text is also found in J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Latina
(Paris, 1844-1864), CI, 919-950, and in Carolus Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores
(Leipzig, 1863), pp. 523-550.

6. See Howell, Rhetoric of Alcuin, pp. 33-61.

7. Ibid., pp. 22-33. For the text of Victor's Ars Rhetorica, see Halm, Rhetores
Latini Minores, pp. 371-448.

8. J. W. H. Atkins, English Literary Criticism: The Medieval Phase (New
York and Cambridge, England, 1943), p. 59.

42 THE HERITAGE

9. The text of the Poetria Nova is found in Edmond Faral, Les Arts Poetiques
du Xlle et du XIII* Stick (Paris, 1924), pp. 197-262; see the same work, pp.
194-197, for an analysis of the Poetria Nova, and pp. 15-33 for a discussion of
Geoffrey of Vinsaui ; see pp. 28-33 for an analysis of the question of the date of the
Poetria Nova, which Faral finally places between 1208 and 1213.

10. Atkins, The Medieval Phase, p. 142.

11. See William Blades, The Biography and Typography of William Caxton,
England's First Printer (London and Strassburg, 1877), pp. 216-219; also E. Gor-
don Duff, Fifteenth Century English Books ([Oxford], 1917), p. 102; also Isak
Colhjn, Kataloge der Inkunabeln der Schwedischen Offentlichen Bihliotheken II.
Katalog der Inkunabeln der Kgl. Universitats-Bibliothek zu Uppsala (Uppsala,
1907), p. 232, also British Museum General Catalogue of Printed Books s. v. "Tra-
versanus (Laurentius Gulielmus) " My present discussion of the Nova Rhctorica is
based upon the Huntington Library's microfilm copy of the St. Albans edition of
1480.

12. This sketch of Traversagni is given here because of the difficulty the reader
might otherwise have in learning something of him. A brief account of him is found
in Blades, pp. 218-219. By far the best accounts, one in Italian and the other in
Latin, are found in Giovanni Vincenzo Verzellino, Delle Meniorie Particolari e
Specialmente Degli Uomini Illustri delta Cittd di Savona, ed. Andrea Astengo
(Savona, 1890), pp. 400-401, 520-521; upon these I have relied almost completely.
See also Lucas Waddmgus, Scriptores Ordinis Minorum, editio novissima (Rome,
1906), p. 158.

13. Frederic Ives Carpenter, Leonard Cox The Arte or Crafte of Rhethonjke A
Reprint Edited with an Introduction, Notes, and Glossarial Index ( Chicago, 1899 ) ,
p. 25.

14. Stephen Hawes, The Pastime of Pleasure, ed. William Edward Mead, Early
English Text Society (London, 1928 [for 1927]); see especially pp. xxix-xxx for a
discussion of the edition of 1509.

15. Ibid , p. 56, line 1357, According to Whitney Wells, "Stephen Hawes and
The Court of Sapience'' The Review of English Studies, VI (1930), 284-294, the
Court influenced Hawes' The Example of Virtue, which in turn provided the pattern
for the Pastime.

16. Pastime, ed. Mead, pp. 30-54 [lines 652-1295].

17. Ibid., p. 52 [lines 1247-1253].

18. P. 25. Carpenter calls Caxton's Mirrour a translation of the French version
of the Speculum Mundi. Actually, the work is a translation of the Image du Monde,
a French encyclopedia perhaps best attributed to Gossotiin, and probably completed
in January, 1245 (O.S.); see Oliver H. Prior, Caocton's Mirrour of the World, Early
English Text Society (London, 1913 [for 1912]), pp. vii-xi,

19. Caxton s Mirrour, ed. Prior, pp. 35-36.

20. Cox, Rhethoryke, ed. Carpenter, p. 41.

21. Ibid., pp. 41-42.

22. Ibid., p. 42.

23. Ibid., p. 42.

24. Ibid., pp. 81, 87.

25. JfetU,p.29.

26. Ibid., p. 91; Carpenter reprints extracts from Melanchthon's Institutiones
Rhetoricae on pp. 91-102.

27. Cicero, Topica, 1. 1-5; 2. 6-7.

28. Cox, Rhethoryke, ed. Carpenter, p. 43.

29. Ibid., pp. 43, 87.

30. Ibid., p. 87.

31. Ibid., pp. 15-16, 21.

32. Russell H. Wagner, "Wilson and His Sources,** Quarterly Journal of Speech,
XV (1929), 530-532.

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC

33. The following table, based upon Wilsons Arte of Rhetorique 1560, ed. G.
H. Mair (Oxford, 1909), and upon Richard Sherry, A Treatise of Schemes and
Tropes ( [London], [1550] ), indicates the chief points of similarity between the two
works :

Topic

"audience of sheepe"
"three maner of stiles"
'figure"
"metaphore"
"abusion"
"metonymia"
"transumption"
'"periphrasis"
''scheme"
'epenthesis"
"syncope"
"proparalepsis"
'apocope"
"extenuatio"
"gradatio"
"dissolutum"

* Wilson illustrates
"diminutio."

Wilson
p. 166
p. 169
p. 170
pp, 172-173
pp 174-175
p. 175
p. 175
pp. 175-176
p. 176
p. 177
p. 177
p. 177
p. 177
pp. 180-181
p. 204
p. 205

°-C5

Sherry
sig. C 2 r °
sig. B 3 r °
sig B 5 r °
sig. C4v°-C5r
sig. C 5 r °
sig. C 5 v
sig. C5r
sig. C 6 v
sig. B 5 r °
sig B 6 r °
sig. B 6 r °
sig. B 6 r °
sig. B 6 r °
sig.D7r°*
sig. D 5 v °
sig. D 6 r °

'extenuatio" with the form used by Sherry to illustrate

34. Wilson, Rhetorique, ed. Mair, p. 6.

35. Ibid., p. 23.

36. Ibid., pp. 86-97.

37. Ibid., pp. 99-116.

38. Ibid., pp. 158-160.

39. Ibid., pp. 162-164.

40. Ibid , p. 160.

41. Ibid., p. 162.

42. This list of editions of Wilson's Rhetorique is based upon the entries in the
Short-Title Catalogue s. v. "Wilson, Sir Thomas."

43. For a discussion of another occurrence of this epigram in the seventeenth
century, see Wilbur Samuel Howell, "Nathaniel Carpenter's Place in the Contro-
versy between Dialectic and Rhetoric," Speech Monographs, I (1934), 20-41.

44. William Pemble, Enchiridion Oratorivm (Oxford, 1633), p. 2.

45. See Cicero, Orator, 14. 43-44, 15. 50-53; 17. 54-61.

46. For the text of this little work, see Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores, pp. 607-
618, also Migne, Patrologia Latina, XC, 175-186.

47. The evidence on this matter is presented in M. L. W. Laistner, A Hand-
List of Bede Manuscripts (Ithaca, 1943), pp. 131-132.

48. See M. L. W. Laistner, "The Library of the Venerable Bede," in Bede his
Life, Times, and Writings, ed A. Hamilton Thompson (Oxford, 1935), p. 241.

49. For Isidore's De Grammatica and De Rhetorica, see Migne, Patrologia
Latina, LXXXII, 73-124, 123-140; for his De Rhetorica alone, see Halm, Rhetores
Latini Minores, pp. 505-522.

50. Halm, p. xv.

51. Laistner, "The Library of the Venerable Bede," in Thompson, p. 241.

52. Bede, Liber de Schematibus et Tropis, ed. Halm, p. 607; translation by the
present author.

53. Laistner, "The Library of the Venerable Bede," in Thompson, pp. 263-266.

54. Atkins, The Medieval Phase, p. 75.

55. An analysis of this work and typical extracts from it are found in Fatal,
Les Arts Poetiques, pp. 321-327.

44 THE HERITAGE

56. Atkins, The Medieval Phase, p. 97.

57. The only modern edition is by Spmdlcr, see The Court of Sapience, rd.
Robert Spindler, Beitrage zur Englischen Philologie, VI (Leipsiz, 1927). Its first
edition is usually listed under the title De Curia Sapientiae or Cuna Sapientiac,
although the work is in English.

58. The Court of Sapience, ed. Spindler, pp, 198-200.

59. Ibid 9 p. 199, line 1911. Buhler thinks these three teims belong to punctua-
tion; he finds their inclusion as a part of rhetoric unusual, although he indicates that
the author of the Court is probably following Isidore and Balbus in includ-
ing them in rhetoric. See Curt Ferdinand Buhler, "The Sowees of the Court ol
Sapience/' Beitrage zur Englischen Philologie, XXIII (Leipzig, 1932), 75. Actually,
however, these terms belong, not to punctuation, but to the theory ol oratorical
style. They may be found in Cicero, Orator, 61. 204-206, 62. 211-214; 66. 223-226;
also Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 9. 4. 22-45, 122-130.

60. Buhler, op, cit,, p. 75, shows that the author of the Court depends also
upon the Laborintus of Evrard F All em and,

61. S^g.Alv°~A2r°.

62. Sig.A2r°.

63. Sig.A4v°.

64. Sig.A5r°.

65. Sig.A6v°.

66. Sig.Blr0.

67. Sig.Blv0.

68. Sig.B5r°.

69. Sig.B5r°.

70. Sig.C4r°-C4v°.

71. My illustration is modeled upon that m Wilson, Rhctuntjuc, ed. Mair, p.
177. For Sherry's less telling illustration, see Treatise of Schemes <!r Tropes,
sig. B5v °.

72. This illustration is from Sherry, sig. C 4 v °.

73. Sig.A5r°.

74. Sig.A6r°.

75. Sig.A8r°-A8v°.

76. The second edition of Sherry's work abandons his carhei distinction be-
tween Schemes and Tropes and substitutes for it the distinction between figures of
grammar and figures of rhetoric, tropes being given a place under the latter head-
ing. The second edition is also a mixture of Latin and English; most topics arc
explained in both languages in the course of the treatise.

77. C£. Sherry ( 1550), sig. F 7 r °-F 8 v °, and Peacham, sig. Q 1 r °-C3 2 r °.

78. Cf. Sherry ( 1555), foi XLI r °~XLI v °, and Peacham, sig. R 3 v °.

79. See John Hoskins, Directions for Speech and Style, ed, Iloyt Hopewcll
Hudson, Princeton Studies in English, XII (Princeton, 1935); see especially pp.
xiv-xv for a discussion of the date of Hoskins* work, and pp. xxvii-xxxxiii for an
examination of the use of the Directions by Jonson, Blount, and Smith,

80. Hoskins, ed. Hudson, p. 3; for a full discussion of the sources of the Direc-
tions, see pp. xxii-xxvii.

8L Mair, pp. 39-63, 66-85, 92-94.

82. Sig.Glr0.

83. Its title and imprint are as follows: A booke called the Foundation of
Rhetorike, because all other partes of Rhetoriko are grounded thereupon, eucry
parte sette forthe in an Oration upon questions, verie profitable to bee knotocn and
redde, Made by Richard Rainolde (London, 1563),

84. See Francis R. Johnson, The Foundation of Rhetorike by Richard Rainolde
with an Introduction (New York: Scholars* Facsimiles and Reprints, 1945), p. xiv.

85. For sketches of these three rhetoricians, sec Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Biography and Mythology, ed. William Smith, s, v, "Aphthonlus of Antioch/* "Hcr-
mogenes 6," and 'Theon, literary 5."

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 45

86. See John Edwin Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship, 2nd ed. ( Cam-
bridge, England, 1906), I, 318-319, 381.

87. Fol. 1 r °-l v °; see also above, note 43.

88. Fol. 2v°.

89. Fol.2v°~3r0.

90. Fol.3v°-4r°.

91. Fol. 4r°.

92. Fol. 4r°.

93. Fol. 4v°.

94. Fol. 25 r°.

95. The recent works specifically recognizing the forgotten importance of
Ramus are as follows: Hardm Craig, The Enchanted Glass (New York, 1936); Will-
iam Garrett Crane, Wit and Rhetoric in the Renaissance (New York, 1937), Perry
Miller, The New England Mind (New York, 1939); Sister Miriam Joseph, Shake-
speare's Use of the Arts of Language (New York, 1947), Rosemond Tuve, Eliza-
bethan and Metaphysical Imagery* (Chicago, 1947); Donald Lemen Clark, John
Milton at St. Paul's School (New York, 1948).

96. See the Dialectiqve de Pierre de la Ramee (Paris, 1555), pp. 84-85. Ramus'
three laws are derived from Aristotle's discussion of the premises of demonstration
in the Analytica Posteriora, 1.4. For the Greek terms for these laws, see below, p. 57.

97. For a list of the works in which Ramus and his interpreters discuss these
three laws, see Wilbur Samuel Howell, Fenelons Dialogues on Eloquence (Prince-
ton, 1951), pp. 8-9.

98. Roland Macllmaine, The Logike of the moste Excellent Philosopher P.
Ramus Martyr (London, 1574), pp. 7-8.

99. Ibid., pp. 11-12.

100. See Talaeus' prefaces to the first and a later edition of his Rhetorica in
Petri Rami Professoris Regii, 6- Audomari Talaei Collectaneae Praefationes, Epis-
tolae, Orationes (Marburg, 1599), pp. 14-16.

101. See Wilbur Samuel Howell, "Ramus and English Rhetoric: 1574-1681,"
QJS, XXXVII (1951 ), pp. 299-310. A complete account of the English Ramists, with
special attention to Chaderton, Harvey, Temple, John Milton, and many others, will
be found in my forthcoming book on logic and rhetoric in the English Renaissance.

102. Of the five parts of Ciceronian rhetoric, only Memory failed to find a place
in Ramistic dialectic or rhetoric. Ramus believed that Memory was not an explicit
topic for either art to deal with, but, as a faculty of the mind, was assisted and
strengthened by what dialectic had to say about Arrangement. See P. Rami Scho-
larum Dialecticarum, seu Animadversionum in Organum Aristotelis, libri xx, ed.
Joannes Piscator (Frankfurt, 1581), p. 593. See also P. Rami 6- A. Talaei Collec-
taneae Praefationes, p. 15, where Talaeus expresses his view on this subject.

103. For a recent edition of this latter work, and a careful commentary upon it,
see The Arcadian Rhetorike by Abraham Fraunce, ed. Ethel Seaton (Oxford: Pub-
lished for the Luttrell Society by Basil Blackwell, 1950).

104. The first edition bears the following title: Rameae Rhetoricae Libri Dvo.
In vsvm Scholarvm (Oxford, 1597); the second edition (1598) and later ones were
entitled Rhetoricae Libri Duo, Ramus' name being no longer included on the title
page.

105. See Charles Hoole, A New Discovery Of the old Art of Teaching Schoole,
ed. E. T. Campagnac (Liverpool and London, 1913), "The Masters Method/' p.
132.

106. For an English translation of the section on Memory in the Oratoriae Libri
Duo, see Lee Sisson Hultzen, "Charles Butler on Memory," SM, VI (1939), 44-65.

107. Oratoriae Libri Dvo ( Oxford, 1629 ) , sig. L 1 r °. Translation by the present
author.

108. Macllmaine, p. 9.

109. The titles of these three translations are given in full in the present author's
"Ramus and English Rhetoric: 1574-1681," op. cit., p. 306.

46 THE HERITAGE

110. The title page of this work identifies the author as "J- B. Master of the
free-school of Kinfare in Staffordshire." The dedicatory epistle identifies J. B. as
John Barton, as does the epistle "To the Reader."

111. Barton, Art of Bhetorick, p. 1.

112. See Karl R. Wallace, Francis Bacon on Communication 6- Rhetoric or: The
Art of Applying Reason to Imagination for the Better Moving of the Will ( Chapel
Hill, 1943).

113. See R. W. Gibson, Francis Bacon A Bibliography of his Works and of
Baconiana to the year 1750 (Oxford: At the Scrivener Press, 1950), pp. xiv-xv;
72-73, 108-109, 118-124.

114. The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and
Douglas Denon Heath (Boston, 1860-1864), VI, 117, hereafter cited as Works.

115. Works, VI, 118.

116. Ibid, VI, 118.

117. Ibid., VI, 119.

118. Ibid., VI, 119.

119. Ibid., VI, 119. For an illustration of Ascham's criticism of Ramus, sec Roger
Ascham, The Scholemaster, ed. John E. B. Mayor (London, 1863), pp. 101-102.
For Ramus* tribute to Sturm, see P. Kami 6- A. Talaei Collectaneae Ptaefationes,
Epistolae, Orationes, p. 67.

120. Works, VI, 120.

121. Ibid., VI, 215.

122. Ibid., VI, 260-261.

123. Ibid., VI, 282.

124. Ibid., VI, 169

125. Ibid., VI, 285, 288, 297.

126. Ibid., VI, 261, 268-269.

127. In the English version of the Advancement of Learning, Bacon's terms for
these two aids are "Preparation" and "Suggestion." In the Latin version, the terms
are "Promptuana" and "Topica." Cf. Works, II, 386, and VI, 269,

128. Works, VI, 269-270.

129. Ibid., VI, 270-272.

130. Ibid., VI, 281-282.

131. Ibid., VI, 296.

132. Ibid., VI, 297,

133. Ibid., VI, 297.

134. Ibid., VI, 299.

135. Ibid., VI, 299.

136. Ibid., VI, 298, Bacon says: "And therefore as Plato said elegantly, That
virtue, if she could be seen3 would move great love and affection" This quotation
is from Phaedrus, 250. See Lane Cooper, Plato Phaedrus, Ion, Gorgia$» and %w~
posium, with passages from the Republic and Laws ( London, New York, Toronto,
1938), p. 34. Cooper translates the passage thus: "O what amazing love would
Wisdom cause in us if she sent forth an image of herself that entered the sight, us
the image of Beauty does."

137. Cf. Works, VI, 300, and Phaedrus, 271-272, 277; for a translation of the
Platonic passages, see Cooper, pp. 61, 68.

138. Works, VI, 300.

139. For a discussion of this matter, see the present author's F$nelon*$ Dialogues
on Eloquence, pp. 14-16. For Ramus' discussion of Method, see Dialeetiqve ( 1555),
pp. 120-135.

140. Works, VI, 288.

141. Ibid., VI, 289.

142. Ibid., VI, 289.

143. Ibid., VI, 294; IX, 128, 122; II, 434, 427-428.

144. Ibid., VI, 300.

145. Ibid., VI, 302-303.

ENGLISH BACKGROUNDS OF RHETORIC 47

146. Ibid., VI, 131.

147. Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal-Society of London (London,
1667), pp. 112, 113.

148. This work was first translated into English under the title, Logic; Or, The
Art of Thinking (London, 1685).

149. For a full account of this historic ceremony, see Samuel Eliot Morison, The
Founding of Harvard College (Cambridge, Mass., 1935), pp. 257-262.

150. Morison, p. 439. For a thorough discussion of the influence of Ramus at
Harvard during the seventeenth century, see Miller, The New England Mind, pp.
115-156, 312-330, 493-501.

151. See Alfred C. Potter, "Catalogue of John Harvard's Library/' Publications
of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, XXI (1919), 219-220.

152 Ibid, p. 224!

153. Ibid., p. 225. According to Potter, John Harvard's library contained Cicero's
Operum Omnium tomus 1-3 (Basel, 1528), but I do not know the precise contents
of that particular edition.

154. Ibid., pp. 192, 208.

155. Ibid., p. 198.

156. Ibid., pp. 199, 202, 213.

Rhetorical Theory in Colonial America

WARREN GUTHRIE

Basic to the later development of speech education in America was
the foundation on which that development was built— the rhetorical
theory studied and taught in the colonies. We will examine briefly the
pattern and growth of that rhetorical theory.

The Rhetoric of Style

During the first century of American colonization the educational
doctrine and some of the writings of Peter Ramus a seemed almost to

O s|C^fc^fi««f!Y',1(*;''fVw^'r'«''*V'-.j4

dominate the thinking of the colonists. Ramcan works on grammar and
dialectic were included in John Harvard's bequest to the colonies* first
college. Leonard Hoar, writing to his nephew, Josiah Flynt, a freshman
at Harvard, in 1661, refers to the "Incomparable P. Ramus," and further
adds that Josiah should "make use of the grand Mr. Ramus in Grammar*,
Rhetorique, Logick." 2 Cotton Mather reported that in Harvard "the
Ramean discipline be ... preferred unto the Aristotelian."3 In 1698
thirteen copies of "Rami Logica* were imported into Boston.4 The 1723
catalogue of the Harvard Library lists his Scholia in 3 primas liberates
artes,

Although Ramus wrote no formal rhetoric as a separate treatise, cer-
tain concepts are clear in his writings. His feeling was

since it was concerned only
with ornamenting those ideas^^^^Ttlgic, and already expressed
correctly with the aid of grammar. Much of what was formerly rhetor-
ical doctrine in the classical conception was thus imported into logic or
dialectic. Especially was this true of invention and arrangement.
Rhetoric was left only with style and delivery as Ramean logic became to
a considerable extent a "rhetorical logic**; although it retained the
typical syllogistic doctrine, it added much of the material and point of
view of classical inventio.

Thus, the period of Ramean rhetoric in America, continuing until

RHETORICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA

c. 1730, was a period of rhetorical decadence, far from the active ele-
ments of the art which the ancients had considered the very heart of
rhetorical doctrine.
The following will indicate the general scheme of Ramus' rhetoric: 5

simple •

comparative
distributive

dialogistio

• metonymy
•'irony

metaphor
^synecdoche

epizeuxis

anadiplosis

climax

anaphor
epistrophe
epanaiepsis
epanados

paronomasia
polyptoton

C exclamation
correction

I apostrophe
prosopopoeia

( deliberation
I occupation

I permission
I concession

words
sentences

body, head, eyes
arms, hands, fingers
FIG. 1.

Since Ramus himself wrote no rhetoric, it was from a number of
works in the Ramean tradition that his doctrine was circulated in the
colonies. Perhaps the most "official" one— it was highly praised by
Ramus in its preface— was the text written by Omer Talon. His Jfeb,
t^nca^ was one of the works used for the IT^^E^OT" rhetoric at
Harvard College, and the book had considerable circulation in the
colonies. John Harvard's bequest contained a copy,7 and another was

50 THE HERITAGE

in the library of Increase Mather.8 A copy which is bound together with
Ramus's Dialectics and Greek Grammar to make one volume is inscribed
by Dudley Bradstreet with the date 1694. 9 Bradstreet was graduated by
Harvard in 1698. ( One recalls the reference of Mr. Hoar to the ""grand
Mr. Ramus ... in Rhetorique.") Further, Alexander Richardson's Logi-
cian's Schoolmaster, containing much of Talaeus' rhetoric, is known to
have been in the colonies as early as 1635.10

Talaeus7 rhetoric presents a truncated pattern of rhetorical theory at
best. Ramus' definition, "Rhetorica est ars bene dicendi," is followed,
as is his belief that only style and delivery should be discussed. Further,
Talaeus follows Ramus in feeling that all figures of thought should be
treated in logical works. Thus there is left to rhetoric only some twenty-
five tropes and figures. Sixty pages treat of these— the rest of the work
includes generalized comment on voice and gesture. Apparently this
very brevity and narrowness of outlook was an advantage. Certainly
the work had long and influential use in the colonies.

Nonetheless, the most popular presentation of the Ramean doctrines
seems to have been that of William Du^^.^1 His book was a digest of
Talaeus, and thus a third-hand RamuSTbut it was extremely popular in
the colonies. Probably it was a school text as early as 1690,1- and impor-
tations by colonial booksellers were constant. Fifteen copies were im-
ported by Robert Boulter in 1682; ten more by others in the following
year.13 Known to be a grammar school text in 1712, 14 it was listed in the
Harvard course of study in 1726, ir> and it may still have had some use
as late as 1764, since it was then one of the books claimed by students
after a fire at Harvard College in that year.10

It would seem, therefore, that Dugard's work was a standard gram-
mar school textbook during the early eighteenth century, and that it had
fairly extensive use in the colleges as well. Perhaps its popularity in the
schools may be some explanation of its scarcity in private libraries, since
textbooks seem to have been valued as little for permanent possession
then as now.

^^^on^i^^^n^i was first issued in 1650 when Dugard was head-
master of Merchant Taylors school. It follows in all respects the Ramean
principles, treating the figures of speech in some thirty pages, and then
devoting four to delivery.17 The text of Dugard is in catechetical form,
and, as the title advertises, is so arranged that if the questions are
omitted the answers will give a complete foundation in rhetoric for
beginners. A notation from the opening will give some picture of the
method and scope of the book: 18

Quaest. 1. Quid est Rhetorica?

Rhetorica est ars ornate dicendi.

BHETOBICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA 51

2. Quot sunt paries Rhetorices?
Partes Rhetorices Elocutio, &

duae sunt: Pronuntiatio

Following the definitions there is a list of the Ramean figures of
speech, each illustrated from Latin literature. Brief as this treatment of
style is, it is detailed in contrast with the very brief and perfunctory
treatment of delivery which follows. The discussion of delivery gives
only a few suggestions concerning the proper "Voice" for the various
parts of an oration, and some general advice on the movement of the
whole body and its parts.

Thus the book features concise definitions of the standard Ramean
tropes and figures, with a minimum of illustrative material. While its
contribution to the development of rhetorical theory must be adjudged
slight, it was compact and doubtless useful to both grammar school and
college students. At any rate, it represents the rhetorical doctrine taught
the colonists before 1730 in its most popular form.

Perhaps thgstrongestc<^^
in the early

plp&SfJCiGEhttd Johaon Vossius' own rhetoric,^Tiad some

circulation in the colonies. Listed as in the Harvard Library in 1724, it
was starred as especially useful for upperclassmen in Yale in 1743. 20

Vossius^rhetoric treated of an art much more closely allied to classi-
cal concepts than did tha .rhetoric of R,amus— a much fuller art than
Ramus was willing to concede. Although Vossius, too, treats mostly of
trope and figure, there is a fairly adequate discussion of invention, dis-
position, and pronunciation as well.

Actually, V^ius^ views, .wex^jnjost popularly presented to the colo-
nies through the works of ThomasB^^^^1 References to the Index
are numerous,22 and all seem to indicate that Farnaby, with Dugard,
was one of the most popular of the rhetoricians influencing early Ameri-
can rhetorical thought.

Farnaby's writings reflect his association with Vossius, and they may
have been influenced by the Jesuit teaching in the classical tradition
which he had experienced as well. His definition of rhetoric is not "ars
ornate dicendi," but "f acultas de unaquaque re dicendi bene, & ad per-
suadenum accomodate." 23

The organization of Farnaby's book also tends toward the classical
tradition. In schematic form, relying largely on bracketed tables,
Farnaby treats of invention, disposition, elocution, and pronunciation,
thus at least mentioning all of the orthodox points of classical rhetoric
except memoria. But when one considers that he treats invention in ten
pages and disposition in nine, it can be seen that the discussions are

52 THE HERITAGE

relatively brief compared with the emphasis given to these same mat-
ters in classical rhetoric. The treatment of elocution or style is more
detailed, the qualities of language being treated, as well as the move-
ment of sentences, periods, and rhythms, and all of the Ramean tropes
and figures.

The second part of the work is a handbook of composition with brief
advice and specimen phrases and forms to use in the various parts of a
theme. Also are included heads for a commonplace book in which quo-
tations may be filed for use in writing and speaking— four pages of
topics running from "Abstinentia, Abusus," to "Vultus, Uxer."

There is frequent reference to classical sources, and on the whole the
book seems vastly superior to Dugard's digest21 It balances the divi-
sions of rhetoric well enough that it would seem to offer, in the hands
of a capable tutor or scholar, a chance for a rhetoric filled with some of
its old-time vitality. Its use in the colonies would seem to indicate,
however, that it was applied much as was Dugard.25 One finds little
evidence to show that the sketchy treatments of invention and arrange-
ment influenced practice in any substantial way. Perhaps the most that
can be said is that it served as a reminder of the full tradition of rhetoric
during a time when the Ramean concept was the more popular.26

A number of other rhetorical works were available to the colonists,
of course. They range from collections of commonplaces or formulae
for the writing of themes or orations, to reference books,27 and their
influence is difficult to assess.

One type of the rhetoric of trope and figure, the so-called "rhetorics
of the scriptures," should be noted. Largely in the Ramean tradition as
to content, this class of rhetorics illustrated the traditional list of figures
with quotations from the Bible, The most popular of this group seems
to have been the work of John Smith.28 Available in America as early
as 1683, the work is frequently referred to in early colonial writings, and
was highly recommended by Samuel Johnson as late as the middle of
the eighteenth century.20 Some idea of the philosophy of the book may
be gained from the introduction:

[Rhetoric] hath two parts, viz.

1. Garnishing of Speech, called Elocution,

2. Garnishing of the manner of utterance, called Pronunciation (which this
treatise is not principally aimed at) .

Elocution, or the garnishing of speech, is the first and principal part of
Rhetorique, whereby the speech itself is beautified and made fine: And this
is either

The fine manner of words called a Trope: or

The fine shape or frame of speech, called a Figure*30

BHETORICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA 53

One of the earliest inquiries into the scientific nature of speech was
also in the coloniesj^m^^olittcifi receiving from the Royal Society of
London in 1670 a copy of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^S^'31 The
book was a forerunner 0£^^^^^^^r works jn phonetics, for it
makes a strong attempt to popularize a phonetic alphabet, suggesting
that the use of a universal sound alphabet would simplify all teaching,
and that such an alphabet is absolutely necessary in training the deaf
to speak.

The material is interesting, and undoubtedly significant for the his-
torian in voice science, but the single copy found in the preparation of
this study would not seem to indicate important influence in the
colonies.

Outstanding is the almost complete lack of the classical influence in
early rhetorical teaching in America. Although most of the evidence is
negative, it seems clear that Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian exerted
little influence on the beginnings of American rhetorical theory; simi-
larly; Cox 32 and Wilson, ss frequently hailed by students of English
rhetorical theory, seem to have had no direct influence on the colonies.
No record has been found in any library, public or private, which would
indicate that either of these two works was in the colonies before 1730.

The Classical Tradition

Despite this domination by Ramean rhetoric during the earliest
period in American history, Js^l^

aJaJWU^^ tja^^ ^TJjT

Speaito^ represented almost a

complete departure from Ramean concepts. First known to be in the
colonies in 1716, 35 the Art of Speaking exerted vital influence in the
development of American rhetorical theory.

The 1696 edition is actually two books bound into one— an Art of
Speaking and an Art of Persuasion.

The "4rt Q£ SpeaMng" opens with a discussion of the formation of
the organs of speech. Then, following chapters on grammar and vocabu-
lary, there is detailed consideration of trope and figure. Although this
would seem to be a consideration of those same aspects of rhetoric
which engrossed the Ramean school, the emphasis is cle^ly on a new
concept: although one's &tyl^stald b&J«aaaeiy^
end qf style. Rather, style is always subservient to-tb^eadof&e.spMciL.

Th^second book of th^^

the empSsi^^ section. Dividing the art into five

parts, "Invention of the proper Means, Disposition of these means,
Elocution, Memory and Pronunciation,36 the work shows a clear empha-

54 THE HERITAGE

sis on rhetoric as an active art, concerned with the moving and influenc-
ing of men.

The general treatment is Ciceronian and the entire work is a keystone
in the bridge between the truncated rhetoric earlier prevalent in the
colonies and the full classical approach which was soon to become
dominant. Interestingly enough, the work also offers a foretaste of the
coming emphasis in American education on "belles lettres." Specialized
discussions of the style of the historian and of the poet are provided.
Within a few years belles lettres emerges as a separate discipline— and
eventually leads to the creation of departments of English Language
and Literature in American colleges and universities.

Along with the growing interest in the more complete rhetoric rep-
resented by the Art of Speaking, there were increasing signs of the use
of the classical rhetorics, especially Cicero, in the colonies. Although
Aristotle's works are infrequently mentioned, Cicero's De Oratorc
became one of the most popular works on speech in mid-eighteenth
century America. In the Yale library "6 dupl" copies were available in
1743; the charging lists of the Harvard library from 1762 to 1770 show
its use with constant regularity. Quintilian also was in wide circulation.
A part of the University of Pennsylvania course of study in 1756,37 it
was in the curriculum of Washington College in Maryland in 1783. :1H

In addition to this growing interest in the classical authors, a num-
ber of English works in the classical tradition were imported into the
colonies after 1730. Since most of these works have been discussed in
other studies,39 only brief comment seems required here. Suffice it to
say that eyery important rhetoric published in England during the
eighteenth century found its way into one or more of the large Ameri-
can libraries.

One of these English rhetorics, however, merits special attention,
It^sJcJbnJ^ Called the "most complete

stat«-^^ English tongue," 4l Ward's

System exerted wide influence in America. Dominant in the college field
until 1780, "if "was in general circulation as well Only the works of
Campbell and Blair were to destroy its influence.

Much has been written about Ward's rhetorical theory and its influ-
ence on American speech education,42 and an especially helpful discus-
sion by Douglas Ehninger summarizes this material as follows;

The work clearly has historical importance, and in a very real fashion con-
tributed to the development of modern rhetorical theory. For, though later
writers may have departed from classicism, unless the full scope of the classi-
cal rhetoric* had been firmly established they hardly could have advanced
beyond it. It was Ward's ultimate contribution— and one for which he was
eminently fitted— to sweep away once and for all the last vestiges of the

BHETORICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA 55

imean apostasy, and thus help pave the way for the great creative rhetorics
the eighteenth century.43

Rhetoric and Belles Lettres

Along with the growth of the classical tradition in America was a
rresponding increase in interest in the new rhetorics of style which
sre being sent to the colonies. Such works as Anthony Blackwell's
troduction to the Classics, first published in London in 171S,44 and
pied almost without change by Robert Dodsley for The Preceptor,45
sre popular in America very soon after publication. The Preceptor,
r example, was read by Samuel Johnson in 1749,46 and was later used
both Pennsylvania and Harvard.47 Some editions contained only the
ackwell material on style; others reprinted John Mason's Essay on
'ocution, giving that work wide circulation in America.
Other contemporary rhetorics of style known to have been circulated
America include John Stirling's A System of Rhetoric, probably first
iblished in London in 1733, and Thomas Gibbon's Rhetoric; or a view
its principal Tropes and Figures ( London, 1767 ) .
Of ^greatest' importance, in terms of later trends in rhetorical theory,
>wever, is tl^e work on taste and composition written by Henry Home,
»d Kames. Within a few months after publication the three volumes
mprising The Elements of Criticism48 were shipped to Harvard
allege,49 and copies were soon found all through the colonies.
The book i^.gn^effort to investigate systematically, the metaphysical
ixK^pte^^tiheJ|ne arts. Home discards the accepted authoritarian
les for literary composition, and builds instead new rules based on
iman nature. Thus it is a philosophical treatment of taste and criticism
ther than a rhetoric in the sense that that term has been used in this
scussion, but it presages an era to follow.50 In only a few years rheto-
3 and belles lettres were to be decisively linked by Hugh Blair, and
letoricians to become steadily less interested in oratory and public
Idress and more concerned with "English Language and Literature."

The Elocution Movement

Still a third major development in rhetorical theory as it affected
merica was taking place during the latter half of the eighteenth cen-
ry— th^grev^^^^^^l^^S^^ov^^^^ Beginning in England,
here cri&SSm^ had become espec-

ally severe by 1750, special training in "elocution/7 or delivery, was
on widely popular both in England and the United States. John
ason, mentioned above, seems to have been the first writer to justify

56 THE HERITAGE

the use of the term elocution to describe delivery. He offers no explana-
tion for the growth of the "vulgar" use of elocution as applied to
delivery rather than style, although a footnote to his work explains his
usage.51

From almost the beginning the elocutionists were divided into two
schools-the and the 52 The naturalists

believed that^^LC*principles of effective Selivery came from nature
herself, and so their system of elocution was based on large precepts
and on the speaker s understanding of the thoughts read or spoken. In
contrast, the mechanists, while they too wanted the "natural" orator,
felt that true naturalness could only come from a study of the rules
implicit within nature. Thus they offered elaborate systems for acquir-
ing naturalness.

Almost every elocution book written and published in England
seems to have circulated in America, and in terms of library requests
in the colleges, many were more widely read than the more complete
rhetorics we have mentioned. Soon the largest number of rhetorical
works written by Americans were to be on elocution.53

Beginnings of American Rhetoric

Clearly, Aedo^^airt influence jji the development of American

dl§K^^

American rhetoric was slow— its fruits came some years after the period

covered in this essay. Nonetheless, even during the colonial and revolu-
tionary years, some contribution to the theory of rhetorical prose was
made in America.

Just as in England, where many encyclopedic works were written
during the eighteenth century, in the colonies similar volumes were
published. It is difficult to determine the first editions of many of these
works, but The Young Secretary's Guide was in its sixth edition by 1727,
and The American Instructor, or Young Man's Best Companion had a
ninth edition published in Philadelphia in 1748. This work defined
rhetoric as "the Art of Speaking in the most elegant and persuasive
manner; or as my Lord Bacon defines it, the Art of applying and
addressing the Dictates of Reason to the Fancy, and of recommending
them there so as to attract the Will and Desires." 5*

Actually, the |irst complete American rhetoric was that of John
giiti^^^^5 Although Witherspoon was educated in Scotland, and
contemporary Scottish influences are apparent in his writing, the^^J^gc-
to«^ constitute a genuine American rhetoric. Based primarily on classi-
cal rhetoric, Witherspoon interpreted these princij5leH» <&M»IighLof the
p3aflf>s6p1Ky of Ms 6wu time.

RHETORICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA 57

Wilson Paul summarizes Witherspoon's contribution to the develop-
ment of speech education in America:

John Witherspoon holds a key position in the transition from the colonial
oratory of the clergymen, to the American oratory of the statesman. His lectures
led the way for the introduction into America of the British eighteenth cen-
tury school of rhetoric furthered by John Quincy Adams. In a nation torn by
war and internal confusion, he carried the banner of theoretical enlighten-
ment and practical improvement of public speaking.56

Despite its nineteenth-century dominance in American speech edu-
cation, no substantial contribution to elocutionary theory was made in
America prior to 1785. In that year Noah Webster published the third
section of his Grammatical Institute of the English Language,57 but its
material on theory was taken largely from Burgh and is only some ten
pages of the two hundred included in the volume. Actually, Webster's
only plea for this study in preference to the Art of Speaking, The Pre-
ceptor, or Scott's Lessons, is that it is an American work.58

Rhetorical theory in colonial America was rhetorical theory in transi-
tion. Ramean in the earliest years, American rhetoric felt the growth of
the classical tradition bringing with it renewed interest in the classics
themselves, and new interest in the contemporary writings of English
rhetoricians. Increased interest in taste and criticism during the period
reflected English thinking in most respects, and in America, as in Eng-
land, the elocution movement was well established by 1785. Although
few contributions of, an original sort have come from colonial America,
the foundation is laid for the productive and creative era ahead.

Notes

1. Pierre de la Ramee, also known by the Latinized Petrus Ramus ( 1515-1572 ) .
One of the most helpful biographies is that by Frank P. Graves, Peter "Ramus and
the Educational Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1912).

2. Quoted in Perry Miller and T. H. Johnson, The Puritans (New York, 1938),
pp. 709-710.

3. Cotton Mather, Magnolia Christi Americana (Hartford, 1853), II, p. 21.

4. W. C. Ford, The Boston Book Market, 1679-1700 (Boston, 1917), p. 131.

5. Graves, op. cit., p. 138.

6. Audemari Talaei, Rhetorica, e, P. Rami Regii Professoris Praelectionibus
Observata (Antwerp, 1582).

7. Harvard College Records (MSS), I, p. 261.

8. Julius H. Turtle, "The Libraries of the Mathers," American Antiquarian
Society, New Series, XX, p. 288.

9. Arthur O. Norton, "Harvard Text Books and Reference Books of the 17th
Century," Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, XXVIII (1930-
1933), 424.

10. C. F. and R. Robinson, "Three Early Massachusetts Libraries/* Publ. Col
Soc. Mass., XXVIII (1930-1933), 133.

11. William Dugard ( 1606-1662). Rhetorics Elementa was first issued in 1650^
by 1673 it had passed through seven editions.

58 THE HERITAGE

12. Norton, op. cit.9 p. 366.

13. Ford, op. cit., pp. 126-150.

14. R. F. Seybolt, Public Schools of Colonial Boston (Cambridge, 1935), p. 71.

15. Benjamin Wadsioorth's Book Relating to College Affairs (MS), p. 28. Re-
port of tutors Flynt and Welstead.

16. R. F. Seybolt, "Student Libraries at Harvard, 1763-64," Publ Col Soc.
Mass., XXVIII (1930-1933), 454.

17. William Dugard, Rhetorices Elementa Quaestionibus et Responsionibus
Explicata, Editio Tricesirna ( Londini, 1705 ) .

18. Dugard, op. cit., p. 1.

19. Ger. Jo. Vossii, Elementa Rhetorica Oratoriis Ejusdem Partitionibus Acco-
modata, Inque Usum Scholarum Hollandiae & Westfrisial Emendatus Edita (Lon-
dini, 1739) is the edition now in the Harvard Library.

20. A Catalogue of the Library of Yale College in New-Haven (New London,
1743).

21. Thomas Farnaby (1575P-1647). By 1639, famous as a schoolmaster and
classical scholar, he was in repeated correspondence with Vossius. Index Rhetoricus
was first issued in 1625, and was revised to the Index Rhetoricus et Oratoribus in
1646. The following notes are from the London edition of 1654.

22. Listed for sale by Robert Chisholm in Boston in 1680, other specific refer-
ences to the work appear in 1693, 1702, 1705, and 1721. The Index was a part of
the Harvard course of study in 1726, listed in the Yale catalogue of 1743, and was
among the books claimed lost by Harvard students after the fire of 1764.

23. Farnaby, Index Rhetoricus et Oratonbus, p. 2.

24 Among th$ sources cited by Famaby are Aristotle, Hermogenes, Dionysius,
Longinus, Aphthonius, Cicero, Quintilian, Capella, Trapezuntius, Ramus, L. Vivcs,
Alsted, Caussinus, Vossius, and others. Foster Watson calls Farnaby "one of the
greatest of the schoolmaster editors of the classics," and this contact with the class-
ical authors is obvious ( op. cit., p. 350). The Index is called by Mair in his intro-
duction to Thomas Wilson: "a small but exceedingly well-constructed book." ( Arte
of Rhetorique [Oxford, 1909]), p. xix.

25. The phrasing in the Harvard records was "Dugard's or Farnaby's Rhetoric"
(italics mine), Wadsworth, op. cit.y p. 28.

26. Donald Lemon Clark, Rhetoric and Poetry in the Renaissance (New York,
1922 ) , p. 62, makes the point that Farnaby "gives a fairly proportional treatment of
inuentio, dispositio, elocutio, and actio. Memoria he omits, following here, as else-
where, the sound leadership of Vossius."

27. Typical are John Clarke, Formulae Oratoriae . . . ( London, 1639 ) ; and Nico-
laus Caussinus, De Eloquentia . . , ( London, 1651 ) .

28. The Mysterie of Rhetorique Unveil'd (London, 1665).

29. Samuel Johnson, President of Kings College: His Career and Writings, ed.
Herbert and Carol Schneider, 4 vols. (New York, 1929), I, p. 317.

30. Smith, op. cit.y p. 1.

31. William Holders, The Elements of Speech: an essay of inquiry into the
natural production of letters, with an appendix concerning persons Deaf and Dumb
(London, 1669). The book was sent Winthrop with the thanks of the Society for
certain items which he had sent to London. ("Correspondence of the Founders of
the Royal Society with Governor Winthrop of Connecticut," Massachusetts His-
torical Society Proceedings, 1st series, XVI [1878], 244.)

32. Leonard Cox, Arte or Crafte of Rhetoryke (London, 1524).

33. Thomas Wilson, Arte of Rhetorique (London, 1553).

34. Bernard Lamy was the author of the work published under the following
title: The Art of Speaking Written in French by Messieurs Du Port Royal in Pur-
suance of a Former Treatise, Entitled, The Art of Thinking Rendered into English
(London, 1696).

35. A copy now in the Harvard library is inscribed, "Edward Wigglesworth,
1716." Wigglesworth was graduated by Harvard in 1712, Other specific references

RHETORICAL THEORY IN COLONIAL AMERICA 59

have been found to the work in 1722, 1726, 1742 and 1748, and it seems to have
been considered by Benjamin Franklin for use in his "English School."

36. Lamy, op. cit., "The Art of Persuasion," p. 268.

37. T. H. Montgomery, A History of the University of Pennsylvania from Its
Foundation to AD 1770 (Philadelphia, 1900), pp. 238-239.

38. William Parker, An Account of Washington College in the State of Mary-
land (Philadelphia, 1789), p. 41.

39. See especially Warren Guthrie, "The Development of Rhetorical Theory in
America," Speech Monographs, XIV (1947), 41-47.

40. London, 1759.

41. W. P. Sandford, English Theories of Public Address, 1530-1828 (Columbus,
1928), p. 110.

42. See especially Sandford, op. cit., pp. 107-110; H. F. Harding, "English
Rhetorical Theory, 1750- 1800," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University,
1937, pp. 40-48 and ff.; Guthrie, op. cit., pp. 44-47.

43. Douglas Ehninger, "John Ward and his Rhetoric," Speech Monographs,
XVII (1951), 16.

44. The subtitle is descriptive of the work: An Essay on the Nature of Those
Emphatical and Beautiful Figures Which Give Strength and Ornament to Writing.

45. (London, 1748).

46. Career and Writings, Appendix.

47. Its use at Pennsylvania was along with Longinus and Quintilian. At Harvard
the rhetoric from the Preceptor was an official "reciting book" in 1786, and an
American edition was published "for the use of the University in Cambridge."

48. The first edition was published in London, 1762. Seven editions were pub-
lished before 1790, and an American edition was published in 1796.

49. Harvard College Papers, 1650-1753 (MSS), I, p. 296.

50. For further comment on Kames, see S. Austin Alliborne, A Critical Dic-
tionary of English Literature and British a>nd American Authors (Philadelphia,
1891), I, 870-874.

51. For further discussion of the changes and the meanings of "elocution," "pro-
nuntiatio," etc., see F. W. Haberman, "The Elocution Movement in England,
1750-1785," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1947.

52. Incidentally, each called itself natural. Contemporary argument continues
over just what is "natural" and what is "mechanical." For illustration see recent
writings by Parrish, Van Dragen, Winans, and others in the Quarterly Journal of
Speech.

53. Many studies have been done of the elocution movement. One especially
helpful to the student of the period is Haberman's, op. cit.

54. George Fisher, The Amencan Instructor, p. 302. It may be of interest to
note that the first use of "elocution" to describe delivery that I have found is in
this work. The parts of logic are given as Invention, Judgment, Memory, and "the
Art of Elocution or Delivering."

55. John Witherspoon, Lectures on Moral Philosophy and Eloquence (Wood-
ward's 3rd ed., Philadelphia, 1810). Witherspoon was president of Princeton from
1768 to 1794, and the Lectures were delivered during that time. They were never
planned for publication, but were first published with Witherspoon's collected writ-
ings after his death, and later reprinted as a separate volume.

56. For a complete analysis of Witherspoon, see Wilson B. Paul, "John Wither-
spoon's Theory and Practice of Public Speaking," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Iowa, 1940.

57. An American Selection of Lessons in Reading and Speaking (Hartford,
1785).

58. Webster was especially filled with patriotic fervor and was attempting to
establish a distinctively "American" language. Thus his three volume Grammatical
Institute, and the strongly nationalistic flavor of the selections chosen for Vol. III.

<J Rhetorical Practice in Colonial America

GEORGE V. BOHMAN

Much of higher education in Colonial times was conducted orally,
not only as lectures and recitations, but prescribed as formal original
speeches, as declamations, disputations, commonplacing, and dramatic
dialogues, and as essays and poems read aloud. To understand the place
of rhetoric in such education and the accumulated customs of the first
one hundred forty years of training in speaking in American colleges,
one must consider three major questions: What was the pattern of
public programs and curricular exercises in speaking at the close of
the Revolution? How did this pattern develop in American colleges?
What were the principal values and disadvantages of the most common
forms of rhetorical training?

Pattern of Rhetorical Training at the Close
of the Revolution

For the purposes of this study, rhetorical training may be divided into
( 1 ) the public programs qf the colleges in which student speakers par-
ticipated and (2) the regular requirements and practices in the curric-
ulum and in student clubs and societies.

Speaking in Public College Exercises

By the end of the Revolution, guests were ordinarily invited to almost
any exercise which involved orations and disputations so that students
often had audiences composed of others than students and faculty at
monthly and quarterly exercises, senior examinations, commencements,
and special academic occasions such as the inauguration of a president
or professor, commemorations, and official visits of dignitaries.

In 1786, young John Quincy Adams wrote from Harvard that at the
next commencement "there 'will be delivered two English poems, two
English orations, two Latin orations, a Greek dialogue, three forensic

RHETOKICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 61

disputes, and an English dialogue between four." 1 At Yale, in 1785,
orations in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, an English oration on eloquence,
a dialogue, syllogistic disputes, and two forensic disputes did the candi-
dates "great Honor with the Literati, & gave universal Satisfaction to
the most respectable & splendid Assembly." 2 At Rhode Island College,
commencement included orations in Greek, Latin, and English, a poem,
and usually both syllogistic and forensic disputes.3 For almost five hours
at the Princeton commencement of 1784, Stiles heard sixteen graduates
of the College of New Jersey deliver orations in English— salutatory,
valedictory, gratulatory, serious, and humorous.4 In typical postwar
commencements, the syllogistic disputations were disappearing and
forensic disputes, English orations, and occasional student "dialogues"
together with some poems and essays read aloud became the fare
which was, as always, well interlarded with reunions over food and
drink.

During an academic year, however, commencen^nt was only the
climax of a series of exhibitions and examuT^onFort^e'ofal prowess
of sQollege students. At least by 1778, Yale concluded the traditional
oral examinations of the senior class with a program of orations. Stiles
described it:

The Senior Tutor thereupon made a very eloquent Latin Speech & presented
the Candidates for the Honors of the College. This Present3- the Pres* in a
Latin Speech accepted, & addressed the Gentlemen Examiners & gave the
latter Liby to return home till Comm.

The exercises after the tutor's speech consisted of a cliosophic oration
in Latin, 11 minutes; a poetical composition in English, 12 minutes; an
English dialogue, 9 minutes; a cliosophic oration in English, 16 min-
utes; disputations in English, 11, 8, and 7 minutes; a valedictory oration
in English, 22 minutes; and an anthem.5

In 1771, President Witherspoon of the College of New Jersey had
introduced prize contests in speaking on the day preceding commence-
ment. These included reading English, Latin, and Greek aloud "with
propriety and grace and being able to answer all questions on its
orthography and grammar," speaking Latin, and pronouncing English
orations. In the last contest, "the preference was determined by ballot,
and all present were permitted to vote who were graduates of this or
any other College." Reporting on the first year of these contests, the
Pennsylvania Chronicle said that "in public speaking the competitors
were numerous, and it was very difficult to decide the pre-eminence."
In 1774, the oratorical prizes were won by Charles Lee and John Rogers,
"each adjudged by seven Gentlemen." A biographer has suggested that
H. H. Brackenridge not only became known as an eloquent undergrad-

62 THE HERITAGE

uate orator at Princeton, but wrote speeches for others, once to be
rewarded by a much needed "handsome suit of clothes and a cocked
hat/' 6

On a variety of other occasions during the academic year, such as
quarter-days, semiannual exhibitions, and sometimes monthly programs,
outsiders were invited to hear disputes, orations, and dialogues pre-
sented by students. Regarding quarter-days at Yale in 1784 and 1785,
Stiles noted: "Present 100 Ladies & Gentlemen, a crouded Assembly"
and "A Full Assembly of Scholars, Gent, & Ladies." A student called
the exercises, which were usually held in the comparatively small col-
lege hall or chapel, "very clever & humorous." In 1780, Stiles described
the program as "anthepi; dialogue; oration; anthem," On December 11,
1782, "die Seniors exhibited the usual academic Entertainments, viz a
Latin oration, an English Dialogue between Gen Warren, Gov Hutchin-
son & Count Pulaski all in the Shades. And English Oration." With his
customary precision, Stiles recorded the lengths of the various items on
some programs:

July 16, 1783. Cliosophic Oration English 11', Forensic Dispute, about
50', English Dialogue, 20', Valedictory Oration in Latin, 26', Address to the
Candidates by Tutor Meigs; he as all others speaking on the stage 16'.

Mar. 9, 1785. Latin Oration, 15', Dialogue S3', English Orations 8'.T

On commemorative occasions, colleges usually included some student
speaking on the programs. At Yale in the 1770's and 1780's, classmates
delivered memorial orations for deceased students. These speeches
compounded large quantities of general philosophy on death and reli-
gion with personal recollections and tributes and long, sentimental
conclusions which were usually adorned with elegiac poetry.8 At Stiles*
inaugural, a "senior Bachelor ascended the Stage & delivered a con-
gratulatory Oration in Latin." 9 Students of the College of William and
Mary sometimes spoke on founders' day. Following a custom at Oxford
and Cambridge when the Tudor sovereigns visited, junior or senior
orators at Harvard pronounced Latin orations before the visiting
governor.10

Speaking in the Curriculum and in Literary
and Debating Societies

* From the use of different forms of speaking in public academic exer-
cises, we gain some insight into the pattern of training and certainly
can observe administrative emphases or the suitability of the different
forms for public use. But the major evidence of the pattern of rhetorical
training may be found in the weekly and yearly requirements of the

RHETOKICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 63

curriculum and in the extracurricular activities of students in literary
and debating societies.

Although tha^ctmcu^^ the

mid-1780's the Latin and Greek languages ,v^g]^gg^^-~^a] exer.
cises than ever before and by the end of the eighteenth century even
Latin syllogistic disputations had disappeared from the public exercises
in all the colleges but Rhode Island and from practically all training
programs. Logic, formerly a required freshman course which served as
a basis for the syllogistic disputes, had generally become part of the
junior or senior curriculum. Interest in English language and literature
seemed to develop in various directions. The forensic disputes which
replaced the syllogistic were in English. Although the learned lan-
guages were still employed in original speaking, the number of English
orations greatly increased. A revival of interest in declamations and the
institution of contests in reading aloud at the College of New Jersey
probably motivated drill in oral delivery. To some extent, this may indi-
cate awareness of the expanding literature of the elocutionists. At
Harvard, the Overseers had for some years considered dramatic dia-
logues and other experiments in theatrical performances as desirable
oral training. However, emphasis on writing English also was increas-
ing and the appearance of both dialogues and the longer commence-
ment and quarter-day pieces called "essays" on public programs seem
partly an oral increment derived from the new attention to "belles
lettres."

Another change which was far advanced in the 1780's in the colleges
was the abandonment of the class tutor system for more specialized
tutors and professors. However, at Harvard, for example, all tutors were
still expected to teach writing and speaking in addition to a specialty.
Many tutors were young and inexperienced in teaching and by no
means specialists in rhetoric. Only President Witherspoon's lectures on
rhetoric in the postwar period provided notable, expert guidance for
training in speaking.

The pattern of rhetorical instruction continued to consist of weekly
attendance at lectures and exercises by classes. In some colleges, only
the two upper classes participated in disputations and orations. Presi-
dent Madison thus described the requirements at William and Mary:

The public exercises are, 1st, weekly, the Whole University in a con-
venient apartment, one of the Society presiding. Questions are previously pre-
pared and then debated. 2 Monthly, for the students in Law. And annually
when subjects are given to deliver Orations, which, if deserving, are printed.11

At Harvard, John Quincy Adams, who was well impressed with the
training in speaking, wrote:

64 THE HEBJTAGE

. . . speaking in the Chapel, before all the classes, which I shall have to do
in my turn four or five times before we leave college. Such also are the
forensic disputations, one of which we are to have tomorrow. A question is
given out by the tutor in metaphysics, for the whole class to dispute upon.
They alternately affirm or deny the questions, and write, each, two or three
pages for or against, which is read in the Chapel before the tutor, who
finally gives his opinion concerning the question. We have two or three ques-
tions every quarter. That for tomorrow is, whether the immortality of the
human soul is probable from natural reason? It comes in course for me to
affirm, and in this case it makes the task much easier. It so happens that
whatever the question may be, I must support it.12

In Stiles* College Memoranda of 1783, some speaking is indicated for
each class, usually once or at the most twice during the week. Seniors
and juniors disputed Mondays and Tuesdays. Juniors also spoke in
chapel part of Thursday afternoons. Sophomores spoke in chapel Sat-
urday afternoons. The amount of freshman time for speaking is not
clear.13 In general, the number of opportunities for each student to
speak was not large. Although most of the compositions were usually
written out before delivery, the amount of criticism both in written and
oral forms and, indeed, the effort put upon the composition and per-
formance by students are factors not clarified in contemporary accounts.

That there were numerous students who sought more rather than
less opportunities to speak is suggested by the existence of literary and
debating societies in the colleges. Particularly at New Jersey, Yale,
Harvard, Dartmouth, and William and Mary, student members of such
clubs indulged in frequent programs which emphasized all the types of
speaking that were included in the curricular exercises. In addition,
business sessions and extempore disputes as well as some dramatiza-
tions provided even greater variety. Mutual criticism and competition
stimulated improved performances. At William and Mary, the able
George Wythe also sponsored moot courts for would-be lawyers at
which some deliberative as well as strictly legal problems were
debated.14

Such was the nature of student training and activities in speaking
just after the Revolution, The training consisted primarily o£ lectures
and readings in rhetorical theory and related subjects, together with
regut&c' exercises in original speaking, declamation, and disputation
which gave a fW Opportunities awua% jEac oaoh student' jto speak
befot^nis cl^ss ajid tutors and for selected^faidcsats to , spook ^.quarter-
days, examinations, prize ^QBtprts, ,aid cowii^iijcements. A$ purely
extracurricufar"" enterprises,, speaUag ^t«d^'€dbMft|""16urishfea? some-
timesvQii a competitive basis? iti literary and d^Mting* societies. The
quality of aH these aspects of rhetorical training varied considerably
from one college to another. The quality of instruction was apparently

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 65

superior under the aegis of President Witherspoon, George Wythe, and
perhaps under Ezra Stiles and the Yale tutors.

The Development of Rhetorical Training in Early
American Colleges

The manner in which rhetorical training developed may be seen in
three stages. The first was the pattern used at Harvard College in the
seventeenth century. In a second stage, with minor changes, the
Harvard pattern was adopted at Yale and the College of William and
Mary. During the middle decades of the eighteenth century, the Col-
lege of New Jersey, the College of Philadelphia, King's College, Dart-
mouth College, and Rhode Island College instituted programs which
contained many of the same elements, but showed considerable indi-
viduality. In a third stage, more significant changes in the traditional
pattern of Tudor and Continental education resulted from demands for
functional training in the speaking of English which feegan with the
plaiming of the College of Philadelphia at mid-century and permeated
all the colleges.

In 1642, when Harvard set up laws to guide students, it required
declamations, syllogistic disputations, orations, and commonplacing.
All these had been similarly practiced in Britain and Europe. The rules
of syllogistic disputation had changed little since Abelard's day and for
centuries formal declamations and orations had been exhibited by
British university students at commencements and state visits.15 In the
early laws, Harvard undergraduates and bachelors were required to
"repeate Sermons in ye Hall whenever they are called forth," "untill
they have Commonplaced," although the purpose seemed not so much
rhetorical as that "with reverence & Love they may retaine God & his
truths in their minds." Commonplacing was generally scheduled for
nine and ten o'clock Saturday mornings.16 Declamations for first, sec-
ond, and third year men were held at nine and ten on Fridays. At first,
"publique declamations in Latine and Greeke" were planned for each
student monthly, but these were reduced to bimonthly in 1655. The
declamations, contrary to frequent usage, seem generally to have been
original orations and sometimes were delivered in English instead of a
classical language.17 Practice in disputation, supervised by the presi-
dent, occupied an hour for each class on Monday and Tuesday after-
noons. Finally, the whole college heard the president lecture on rheto-
ric from eight to nine Friday mornings and, after declamations, rhetoric
was to be studied the rest of the day. In this plan of 1642, syllogistic
disputations provided practice in logic, but the subjects which were
chosen ranged through all the areas of study. Likewise, declamations

66 THE HERITAGE

or orations represented practice in rhetoric, which for the followers of
Ramus it will be recalled meant the canons of elocutio and pronuntia-
tio. To a marked extent, pedagogy also followed the Ramist procedure
of one subject a day, taught by successive periods of lecture, study,
quiz, and oral applications of what was learned in one or more of the
prescribed rhetorical exercises.18

Disputations and orations constituted the main fare at seventeenth
century commencements. Before as many critical Harvard alumni,
admiring parents, and curious townsfolk as could come, the young men
showed their skills in logic and rhetoric and made their first promising
public impressions upon future colleagues in the ministry and leaders
in both church and politics.10

When the College of William and Mary and Yale College were
founded near the opening of the eighteenth century and even at mid-
century when the College of New Jersey and King's College were
planned, the Harvard pattern (or perhaps more accurately, the tradi-
tional university pattern ) of rhetorical training was used. Thus, at the
beginning of these colleges, the Latin syllogistic disputations, declama-
tions, and orations predominated.20

By mid-century, however, various forces were challenging the domi-
nance of the Latin language, the Ramist views of rhetoric and logic,
and consequently the nature of the rhetorical exercises. Demands for
more functional training in the English language led to moire orations
in English and contributed to the substitution of the forensic fdr the
syllogistic disputation. Under President Finley, the College of New
Jersey required some declamations "to display the various passions, and
exemplify the graces of utterance and gesture." At Yale and other col-
leges, Latin orations appeared on commencement programs until the
end of the period.21 During the last half of the century, the colleges
permitted forensic disputations to become increasingly prominent both
in the classroom exercises and in public exhibitions. The syllogistic
form appeared last at commencements at New Jersey in 1774, Phila-
delphia in 1775, and King's in 1770. The forensic form was used in the
1760's at commencements by all except Dartmouth, Rutgers, and pos-
sibly William and Mary. The forensic gained ground until, prior to the
outbreak of the Revolution, Harvard, Yale, King's, Philadelphia, Rhode
Island College, and the College of New Jersey required forensic dispu-
tation, usually weekly, by the two upper classes. By the 1790's, the syl-
logistic form had practically disappeared from the requirements of
American colleges.22

Benjamin Franklin's Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in
Pennsilvanta (1744) and the Idea of the English School (ca. 1751)
widely publicized a point of view that was gaining favor particularly

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 67

in urban areas. Franklin demanded the training of youth in the Eng-
lish tongue:

Thus instructed, Youth will come out of this School fitted for learning any
Business, Calling, or Profession, except wherein Languages are required; and
tho' unacquainted with any antient or foreign Tongue, they will be masters
of their own, which is more immediate and general Use. . . ,23

Both in the Proposals and the Idea of the English School, he outlined
courses which emphasized speaking and reading skills. He wanted
youth to develop clarity and conciseness, to pronounce distinctly, and
"to form their own Stiles." In his plans, he did not overlook the study of
model speeches, the elements of rhetoric and logic, translations of the
classics, and the latest British literature of Milton, Locke, Addison,
Pope, and Swift or the use of the dictionary; for, he wrote:

It is impossible a Reader should give due Modulation to his Voice, and pro-
nounce properly, unless his understanding goes before his Tongue. . . .
Declarations, repeating Speeches, delivering Orations, . . . [and] Public Dis-
putes warm the Imagination, whet the Industry, and strengthen the Natural
Abilities.24

This broad concept of a program of speech training grew out of
Franklin's wide acquaintance with the needs of professional and busi-
ness men, his interest in contemporary literature and writers, his belief
in the doctrine of good works, and awareness of the special dialectal
problems of the middle colonies. Franklin was a clear spokesman for
the awakened interest in public speaking that was developing out of
the religious revivals, the rise of the lawyer class, and the formation of
business and trade organizations in which he himself had taken the
lead. Political agitation in the ensuing decades intensified this interest
in speaking well.

Although Franklin actually met with only partial and irregular suc-
cess in his effort to establish speaking training primarily in English at
the new college, in other colleges students were demanding exercises in
English and governing boards were not completely unsympathetic. In
October, 1754, the Harvard Board of Overseers selected a committee
"to project some new method to promote oratory." In June, 1755, the
Corporation approved an ingenious plan to substitute dialogues for the
usual declamation. The materials were to be chosen and translated from
standard Latin authors, each student to impersonate a part and then
deliver his part in translation as an oration. In May, 1757, the Corpora-
tion directed the tutors to spend Friday mornings, except when formal
declamations were being held, helping freshmen and sophomores with
their elocution or pronunciation of Latin or English orations, speeches,
or dialogues. In addition, once a month the two senior classes were to

68 THE HERITAGE

hold disputations "in English in the forensic manner without being con-
fined to syllogisms." For ten years the Overseers were concerned with
the enforcement of these major changes by semiannual visitations and
exhibitions.25

Probably the College of New Jersey developed the most ambitious
programs of original orations. According to the Account of 1764, seniors
gave original orations at monthly oration-days and the three other
classes alternately delivered original orations and declamations from
other authors. Apparently, Witherspoon's arrival as president accentu-
ated President Davies' program and the new president soon instituted
the annual prize contests which have been described. In 1772, Wither-
spoon described the curricular requirements in oratory:

During the whole course of their studies, the three younger classes, two
every evening formerly, and now three, because of their increased number,
pronounce an oration, on the stage erected for that purpose in the hall, im-
mediately after prayers, that they may learn, by early habit, presence of mind,
and proper pronunciation and gesture in public speaking. This excellent prac-
tice, which has been kept up almost from the first foundation of the College,
has had the most admirable effects. The senior scholars, every five or six
weeks, pronounce orations of their own composition, to which all persons of
any note in the neighborhood are invited or admitted.26

At King's, the formal laws produced little enlargement of original
speaking. At Philadelphia, with Professor Kinnersley's departure in
1772, oratorical exercises declined.27 At Rhode Island College, both
forensic disputations and English orations appeared on the first com-
mencement programs. In 1774, the two upper classes were required to
attend weekly forensic disputes.28 At Dartmouth, the first commence-
ment of 1771 included one English oration, two orations in Latin, a
syllogistic dispute, but no forensic disputation occurred prior to 1774.
In the laws of 1782, the first Wednesday of each month was devoted to
forensic disputes by seniors.29

As previously noted, another change which occurred as the Ramist
system of logic and rhetoric gave way to classical rhetorical theory and
use of the native tongue was the employment of professorial lecturers
or special tutors in rhetoric and allied fields in a few colleges. Such
experts as William Small at William and Mary, Kinnersley at the College
of Philadelphia, and Witherspoon at the College of New Jersey became
noted lecturers, though it may be doubted that they were superior to
President Dunster and other teacher-presidents of Harvard in the
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries who personally conducted
the lectures as did Witherspoon in this later period.

Several colleges experimented with dialogues and with poems, essays,

RHETOKICAL PBACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 69

and other written compositions of a literary nature which were read
aloud as part of the speaking exercises. These appeared on commence-
ment programs in 1762 at Philadelphia, 1764 at Princeton, 1773 at
Harvard, and at other colleges thereafter. Was direct instruction given
in these exercises? The essays and poems read aloud may have been
part of the training in declamation. Although the Harvard Overseers
blessed the teaching of dramatic dialogues in 1755, the chief evidence
of training in such exercises is in the literary clubs.

At Harvard, Yale, New Jersey, William and Mary, King's, Dartmouth,
and perhaps at the other colleges to a lesser degree, societies were
organized at various times during the eighteenth century, which utilized
disputations, orations, and other types of speaking as major items on
their programs, although religious and social activities and society
libraries were also important incentives for students to join. Many
societies did not outlive the student generation which organized them,
but by mid-century a few organizations achieved a degree of perma-
nence. Critonian at Yale lasted from 1750 to 1772. In 1753, Fellowship
Club, later Linonian, and in 1768 Brothers in Unity were founded. At
William and Mary in 1776 the first chapter of Phi Beta Kappa was
formed. It later organized chapters at other colleges. In the same year,
Rutgers men founded the Athenian society. In the 1780's at Dartmouth,
three major societies, the Social Friends, the United Fraternity, and the
local chapter of Phi Beta Kappa began. At the College of New Jersey,
the earlier Well-Meaning and Plain-Dealing societies were disbanded
in 1768 but the next year the famous American Whig and Cliosophic
societies arose to create a strong competition in varied programs which
included debates, disputations, occasional orations, "Harangues," and
reading aloud. In Clio, "correctors of speaking" and "correctors of com-
position" became regularly elected officers. At King's, Rhode Island
College, and the College of Philadelphia the societies appear to have
been less influential in student life.30

Values of Major Forms of Rhetorical Training

What were the principal values and some of the disadvantages of
the major forms of rhetorical training which were used in the early
American colleges? For purposes of general criticism and evaluation,
we shall consider here only the syllogistic disputation, the forensic dis-
putation, and the oration which persisted as an exercise throughout the
period. The unusual opportunities for more flexible forms of speaking
which the student societies made possible we shall mention but briefly.
David Potter treats of the literary society later in this volume.

THE HEBITAGE

Syllogistic Disputations

In an era in which most students at Harvard were planning to be
ministers, the sifting and defense of "truth" by categorical forms of logic
offered advantages, particularly if audiences were accustomed to the
"plain style" of pulpit address in which concise, didactic, and closely
reasoned discourse was predominant. Aside from some abstract specu-
lation, the purpose of formal logic was not primarily to develop and
project new solutions for problems. As syllogistic disputation was prac-
ticed, the topics or theses were drawn from the curriculum of ethics,
philosophy, politics, theology, grammar, rhetoric, mathematics, and
ancient languages. What the student studied he could formally defend
or attack. If the "truth" seemed to be wanting adequate defense, the
tutor or president-moderator, except at public occasions, would inter-
vene and suggest arguments. Either intervention or a decision on the
"truth" by the moderator could assist the lone respondent if he were
overwhelmed by several opponents.

Despite efforts to insure the victory or at least an adequate defense
of accepted truths, extreme conservatives, such as the Boston minister
Crosswell, charged that graduates were forced to deny theses that were
true and that the "Spirit of Atheism is thereby diffused." In an answer
to CrosswelFs charges, President Holyoke chiefly relied upon the cen-
tury-old tradition behind this type of thesis. He made no formal Aristo-
telian justification of the exercise, but pointed to its use in all Protestant
universities and especially at Harvard under Chauncy, Oakes, and
Mather, who "were as jealous of the Honour of God as you. . . ." 31

It was also argued against the disputes that the logical method was
too intricate and made too many minor distinctions which reduced
argument to "a Parcel Terms" and the "Art of Wrangling." By 1786,
when this form had been abandoned at most colleges, John Quincy
Adams recorded in his Harvard diary:

These syllogistics are very much despised by the scholars, and no attention
seems to be paid to them by the company at Commencement. The scholars
in general think that the government in giving them those parts write on their
foreheads DUNCE in capital letters.

A few days later he wrote his father:

Syllogistic disputes ... are held in detestation by the scholars, and every-
one thinks it a reflection upon his character as a genius and a student to have
a syllogistic; this opinion is the firmer, because the best scholars almost always
have the other parts, There are many disadvantages derive from these syl-
logisms, and I know of only one benefit, which is this. Many scholars would
go through college without studying at all, but would idle away all their

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 71

time, who merely from the horrors of syllogisms begin to study, acquire a
fondness for it, and make a very pretty figure in college. . . ,33

Among the few contemporary accounts of public performances of
students in these disputes, the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1762 commented
that debate at Princeton on a thesis "afforded pleasure to the learned
portion of the audience." Of course Latin was understood only by the
academic community, which somewhat limited the values of exercises
in that language at commencements. John Macpherson complained that
at the College of Philadelphia in 1767, even the Latin was "ill done . . .
ill pronounced, & there was no action, for they spoke from desks/' 33
Actually, if we judge from a few manuscripts and Stiles' diary, the
public disputes of later years comprised only a few concise Latin sen-
tences at a time by each speaker and interest was perforce due either to
parental pride or the keenest intellectual curiosity.

Th^oy^QiHjQris, then, to the syllogistic dispute were numerous. In
contrast to the forensic type of disputation, the syllogistic was overly
concise and brief. It limited logical reasoning to deductive, mostly
categorical syllogisms. Because of the nature of the proofs, the subjects
that were appropriate gave little chance to debate current policies and
to project and test solutions. The structure, in which one respondent
faced a number of opponents tended, many thought, to favor the oppo-
sition. The pattern was extremely stereotyped and allowed no essential
adaptation for the persuasion of the audience. In this respect, the syllo-
gistic dispute remained dialectic and therefore not rhetorical training,
except for the requirement of oral presentation.34

Forensic Disputations

To students familiar with the syllogistic, the forensic dispute offered
much more varied opportunities for using all forms of reasoning and
the whole range of classical rhetorical skills from invention through
delivery. The less concise and usually more familiar English language
prompted fluency; it assured, too, that audiences would understand
most of what was said. For students, the practice of using from two to
four persons on each side in debate and the extension of the total time
to forty-five minutes or more in both public and training exercises made
the preparation and delivery of a forensic a major academic event in
which it was an honor to participate.

The colleges turned to the forensic form just before and during the
period in which students were taking an intense interest in the difficul-
ties between the Colonies and Great Britain, which challenged men to
form opinions and to debate them vigorously. Many subjects continued
to be chosen from the fields of academic controversy in philosophy,

72 THE HERITAGE

rhetoric., languages, and literature. As the Revolution approached, how-
ever, students chose a large proportion of questions from the issues
which sprang up between the mother country and the Colonies or from
the domestic reforms advocated by the Whigs. Proposition and ques-
tions such as these illustrate the trend:

It is lawful for every man, and in many cases his indispensable duty, to
hazard his life in the defence of his civil liberty. (1768)

The Non-Importation Agreement reflects a Glory on the American Mer-
chants, and was a noble Exertion of Self-Denial and Public Spirit. (1770)

The legality of enslaving Africans.

Whether the Press ought to be free?

Whether Females ought to be admitted to public Civil Government?

Whether Representatives are to act according to their own Minds or the
Minds of their Constituents? 35

At the first commencement of Rhode Island College in 1769, James
Varnum and William Williams debated "Whether the British America
can, under her present circumstances, with good policy effect to become
an independent state." 3G In 1773 at Harvard, Theodore Parsons and
Eliphalet Pearson clashed over whether African slavery was according
to the law of nature. Rather than the formal arguments, the careful
persuasive approaches of the opposing speakers in this debate com-
manded respect. The first speaker against slavery apparently assumed
considerable opposition to his position. So, with little argument and
slight attention to African slaves, he talked at some length about the
views of the audience on liberty in general. Then, to combat such a
conciliatory approach, the second speaker in the debate asked the
audience to suspend its sentiments and examine the arguments objec-
tively. He said: "That Liberty is sweet to all, I freely own; but . . . the
doctrine of happiness of the whole . . . requires some subordination."
With this he began a long formal argument that slavery in general
reflected a law of nature which was peculiarly applicable to Africans
in this country.37

After the Revolution, Stiles recorded such timely questions for dispu-
tation as the mode of taxation for paying continental debts, private vs.
public education, universal toleration of religions, the established
church, Vermont statehood, a standing army, increased power for Con-
gress, the Society of the Cincinnati, and imprisonment for debt38

Contemporary comment reflected less interest in the subjects used
than in the "spirit and eloquence" of the speaking. The Pennsylvania
Gazette praised the English forensic dispute at Princeton in 1760 on the
proposition that "the Elegance of the Orations consists in the Words
being Consonant to the Sense" by saying that "The Respondent, Mr.
Saml Blair, acquitted himself with universal applause in the elegant

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 73

Composition and Delivery of his Defence; and his Opponent answered
with Humor and Pertinency." In 1767 at Philadelphia, Macpherson
remarked: "We were then entertained by an English dispute, opened
by Tighlman (who alone it is said composed his own piece) who was
opposed by Johnson. Barkson wound up & bore the bell as the phrase
is r 39

By the end of the period the forensic dispute was adversely Criticized
9BJ2&J^#tfs which have always demanded careful supervision and
restraint. Macpherson noted that in disputes, as in oratory, some stu-
dents were unwilling to make adequate preparation and eitBef "hrfrio
obtain help to prepare a speech or spoke with superficial knowledge.
The second fault was that, especially in the literary and debating socie-
ties, personal abuse5 exaggerated argumentum ad absurdum, and
ridicule were too often rif e<

On the whole, however, tljgjiorensic dispute was better adapted to
the variety of secular as well as religious careers toward which students
of the latter half of the eighteenth century might look. Besides the
pulpit, the courtroom, the legislative hall, the town meeting, and the
stump claimed as much flexibility, knowledge of current issues, and
skillful speaking as the best students could learn. Their intense interest
and the approval of administrations and of many leading alumni testify
to the wide acceptance of jthe forensic dispute as a means of training
leader^ in the Colonies and the infant nation.

Orations

Orators were men of considerable honor in the colleges. Presumably,
the curricular program prepared every man to deliver original speeches
as well as declamations from other authors. In the earlier years, when
classes were small, every student might get a chance to dispute or
deliver an oration in a public exercise and the best were selected for
the salutatory or valedictory orations at commencement or for a com-
plimentary oration at the visit of a governor or the inauguration of a
president. Later, when the orators were elected by the senior class, as
at Harvard, "there was a great deal of intriguing carried on." 40 Whether
by the class or the professors, the choice was announced some weeks
before the oration was to be delivered. Benjamin Wadsworth's Book
recorded notices sent between March 14 and April 15 for late June
commencements. At Princeton, Witherspoon required that speeches be
submitted to him for correction and approval at least four weeks before
the exercises.

If orations generally were of the lengths of those preserved or whose
times were recorded, they ranged from about seven to twenty-five

74 THE HEBITACE

minutes long. Some early Latin orations may have been longer.41 Many
of the publicly delivered orations must have been developed and first
delivered in the routine classroom exercises. Yet, some young men
found the task o£ composition onerous. In a letter to William Paterson,
an alumnus, student Edward Graham wrote:

I was told to entreat your assistance in my favor, to prepare me for my last
public speaking in college the next commencement. On all occasions hitherto
I have made a trial of my own abilities with a view to my own improve-
ment. . . .

The present Senior class in college of which I am a member consists of
about thirty, amongst whom are several excellent speakers who I suppose will
take all possible methods to make an appearance in the fall to the greatest
advantage— if it were supposed that to do this they relied only upon their own
Study and ingenuity I should consider it my interest and exert my powers to
be on a level with them. But as it is known that they depend for the most
part on the assistance of their friends of greater experience and abilities for
their commencement orations there is but little encouragement for one alone
to strive. . . .

Graham must have asked for a complete text from Paterson, for he
added: "If so if I should receive one time enough to commit well to
memory and exercise myself well in it, it will do." 42

Contemporary accounts provide some general criticism of the pub-
licly delivered orations. Holyoke referred to a series of Harvard valedic-
tory orations as "tolerable/' performed "pretty well/' "indifferently both
as to Speech & Action/' and "well." The Pennsylvania Gazette charac-
terized the delivery of orations at King's College, May 18, 1773 as "ele-
gant," "delivered with great propriety/' "with more propriety of pro-
nunciation and gracefulness of action/' "elegant diction . . . received
with much applause/' and "with earnestness and warmth, which never
fail to interest the passions of the hearer." In 1762, the same newspaper
had chiefly referred to elegance, graceful ease, and propriety of the
orations at the commencement of the College of New Jersey. Two years
earlier, the Gazette had mentioned the "very sprightly and entertaining
Manner" in which Benjamin Rush delivered "an ingenious English
harangue in Praise of Oratory." At 1768? at Princeton, William Paterson
remarked that "although the bulk of the young men made a handsom
appearance, yet some really fell short of the expectations of their
friends." Regarding the commencement of the College of Philadelphia
in 1767, John Macpherson wrote:

After prayer, Bankson pronounced a Salutatory Oration. This was one of
the best performances of the day. The Latin was well articulated, & but for
the tone that ran through the whole pronunciation, it was very compleat. . . .
White, a master of arts then pronounced an Oration. I forbear to give any
character of this, you will I dare say see one in the papers; but (if as usual)
it will be far above the merit of the piece.

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 75

In the 1780's, Chastellux heard the orations at Philadelphia and com-
mented: "Some excellent declamations were made in Latin and in Eng-
lish, by no means inferior to those I have heard at Oxford and Cam-
bridge. Their compositions in general were elegant, and their elocution
easy, dignified, and manly. . . ." Chiefly, however, Chastellux was im-
pressed that "whatever the subject, the great cause of liberty and their
country was never lost sight of, nor their abhorrence of the tyranny of
Great Britain." 43

Obviously, despite regulations to encourage early preparation and
careful practice in the delivery of orations, their quality varied widely.
At times, perhaps more in some colleges and under some professors
and tutors than others, Jhe:^^

flowery, ,j^^^^^M^^h^^^y. The compliments which were tradi-
tional in salutatory, gratulatory, and valedictory orations required some
passages with these characteristics. The exhibitory nature of commence-
ments and other public occasions and, particularly the stimulus which
the successful end of the Revolution gave orators of the 1780's to praise
victory, liberty, military heroes, and the future of the United States,
were added factors which encouraged an exaggerated style. A Dart-
mouth orator professed, in keeping with his reading of the less sophistic
classic writers, that he had "not affected a florid style, or the Beauties
of Composition, but to communicate his Sentiments with the greatest
Simplicity and Plainness." Yet he included such passages as these:

Just to address you on this final day, that like a veil shuts up our most
pleasant scenes.

But to sum up all, education softens the rough and savage passions of the
mind that are wild by nature, smoothes the boisterous and foaming seas of
unbridled lust and ambition, melts the obdurate and unrelenting heart into
compassion; adds sweetness to the bands of society; extends and brightens
the rational faculties of the human soul . . . even next to that which is heav-
enly and divine.

Now to conclude in a word. How happy will be the consequences should
America, while shaded with the balmy wings of freedom, cultivate and pro-
mote education. For a long time she has been drenched with scenes of blood.
But do not the lamps of night begin to disappear before Aurora's blush? The
auspicious morn begins to gild the western hills with its golden rays, and
cheer the hearts of freedom's sons with the rising beams of a peaceful day?
Therefore, O Americans! let your hands be strong, your influence to cultivate
education; may your troubles come to a speedy end, and this land be the
grand theatre, where the blessed Redeemer shall make peculiar displays of
this latter day glory.44

The salutatory oration by Sylvanus Ripley, Dartmouth 1771, con-
tained similar figures, alliteration, and parallelisms, arid was written in
a strained, amplified, exalted style, as these passages suggest:

76 THE HERITAGE

As the welcome Approach of friendly Citizens to the cavern'd Hermit; or
gradual dawn of rosy Morning to the bewilder'd Traveller; so is this pleasant
arrival of the Venerable Literate to this solitary Seat of the Muses.

But without Learning, Benevolence looks like a Diamond rough in the
mind that can't display itself to Advantage.

Early in the Infancy of Time Learning began to dawn in the Eastern
World, & afterwards gradually shone around, to charm the Circle of the in-
habited world with new-born Rays.

No sooner is the Happy Stranger arriv'd on their Coasts, than Oratory
breaks forth from the shades of Ignorance & the Charms of Poetry and polite
Literature grace the barren mount of Parnassus.45

From the standpoint of a critic who is familiar with the long history
of rhetoric since Corax, Ripley's style will be considered exaggerated
and fulsome, his preparation probably as hasty and insufficient as that
of many students through the centuries. Ripley's Dartmouth mentors
doubtless applauded his style as close to the accepted taste for this
kind of commencement oration. In perspective, Ripley's style is simply
less mature, less smooth, less tempered by experience than the labored,
published effort of Dartmouth's later son, Webster, in the peroration
of the "Reply to Hayne."

In seeking to teach the major rhetorical skills, the Colonial college
probably found no more effective form than the oration. Rameans and
Aristotelians alike seemed to regard it highly. Under diligent tutors and
professors, orations were closely supervised during preparation, revised
to improve content, arrangement, and style, and polished in delivery.
They were spoken in whatever languages prevailed in academic life.
In these ongioal speeches, students were generally fr$e to discuss cur-
rent pu^Jloas well as a^ardeffilc" issues and to project their thinking itnd
talking in directions which they could follow afterwards in the ministry,
law, and politics. These advantages, coupled with the usefulness of
oifertitifts in competitions and their appeal to public audiences, account
for the continued popularity of the oratorical form in the curriculum,
thelftkrary* societies, and for public acadeihic occasions.

Literary and Debating Societies

Primarily, the^Jfterary and debating societies which flourished, though
often briefly and sporaclicalTy Ih/tlxe American cdTKgeS' 'i&^^^^^^t
thffe-quarters of the eighteenth century, offered additional opportuni-
ties to dlsp^fe, d^elaJta, ami ddi¥^ original speeches. Competition
both within the societies and between rivals on the same campus
whetted the enthusiasm of speakers. To improve the quality of speak-

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 77

ing, largely for more effective competition it seems, "correctors of
speaking" and "correctors of composition" were sometimes elected. In
later years, dialogues, dramatic performances, and the reading aloud
of essays and narrations were also included in society programs.

The chief additions to the kinds of rhetorical fare which the societies
offered college students, however, were extempore and impromptu
speeches. Nowhere else in the colleges was there occasion for such vigor-
ous parliamentary practice as in the business sessions of the societies.
Then, besides the scheduled disputations, which tended to be a series
of carefully planned and written speeches with comparatively little
adaptation to immediately preceding arguments, particularly when the
participants were less experienced members, societies occasionally held
extempore disputes in which the rather scant evidence indicates more
lively give-and-take.46 In the 1790's, at the College of New Jersey,
society debates were of a parliamentary nature, in which each member
was permitted a speech with no time limit in whatever order he chose
to speak, with a possibility of second and third speeches of not more than
ten minutes.47

Hence, generally, it may be argued that although social interests and
intersociety rivalry seem to have dominated the societies, they stimu-
lated much more speaking than the curriculum provided and gave some
impetus to extemporaneous and impromptu debate and to parliamen-
tary practice.48

Notes

1. Writings, ed. W. C. Ford (New York, 1913), I, 25. He added to the letter a
request for Blair's Lectures in octavo.

2. Ezra Stiles, Literary Diary (New York, 1901), III, 184.

3. R. A. Guild, History of Brown University (Providence, 1867), pp. 348 ff.

4. Stiles, Diary, III, 119.

5. Stiles, Diary, III, 11, March 13, 1782. Cf. poem by Joel Barlow, A Prospect
•for Peace (New Haven, 1778), 12pp., delivered at the Yale examination of that
year.

6. John MacLean, History of the College of 'New Jersey ( Philadelphia, 1877 ) ,
I, 312, 363; Pennsylvania Gazette, October 13, 1773; Pennsylvania Journal, Octo-
ber 12, 1774; C. M. Newlin, Life and Writings of H. H. Brackenridge (Princeton,
1932), p. 9.

7. Stiles, Diary, II, 438; III, 11, 80, 130. "A Young Man s Journal," New Haven
Colony Historical Society Proceedings, IV, entry of March 10, 1784. Stiles, Diary,
III, 11, March 13, 1782 and other dates noted, with some variations in punctuation
to clarify the items.

8. E.g., published pamphlets by Samuel Nott (1778), Samuel Austin (1782),
Joseph Demson (1782), and Reuben Hitchcock (1786).

9. Stiles, Diary, II, 277.

10. Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, XVI, 565, 711; Josiah
Quincy, History of Harvard University (Boston, 1860), II, 87 ff, 155; MacLean,
op. cit.y I, 215-216.

11. William and Mary Quarterly, 2d series, VIII, 295, August 1, 1780.

78 THE HERITAGE

12. Writings, I, 21.

13. Stiles, Diary, III, 99.

14. Ota Thomas, "The Theory and Practice of Disputation at Yale, Harvard, and
Dartmouth, from 1750 to 1800," unpublished Ph D. dissertation, State University
of Iowa, 1941; S. E. Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard (Cambridge, 1936), pp.
138 ff, 180; WMQ, IV, 213-260, "The Original Records of the Phi Beta Kappa
Society"; Stiles, Diary, II, 527, Apiil 4, 1781; WMQ, VI, 183.

15. Karl R. Wallace, "Rhetorical Exercises in Early Tudor Education," Quar-
terly Journal of Speech, XXII (1936), 44-51; Colyer Meriwether, Our Colonial
Curriculum 1607-1776 (Washington, 1907), pp. 226 ff; S. E. Morison, Harvard
College in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, 1936), I, 141 ff.

16. PCSM, XV, 25, Laws of 1642-46; ibid., XXXI, 333, laws of 1655, Morison,
Harvard College, I, 141.

17. Morison, Harvard College, I, 179-185; including contrasting texts by Michael
Wigglesworth and Joseph Belcher.

18. Morison, Harvard College, I, 140-141. Barrett Wendell, Cotton Mather,
Puritan Priest (Cambridge, 1926), p. 36, quoting Paterna; "For my Declamations
I ordinarily took some Article of Natural Philosophy for my subjects, by which con-
trivances I did kill two biids with one Stone/' David Potter, Debating in, the Colo-
nial Chartered Colleges (New York, 1944), p. 5n. Quincy, op. cit,, II, Appendix
xv, lists mulcts or fines for failure to perform rhetorical exercises : not exceeding 1/6
for not declaiming, 1/6 for bachelors neglecting disputes, 3/ for respondents neg-
lecting. These weie modified after 1761.

19. Morison, Harvard College, I, 465 ff.

20. Cf. Elaine Pagel, "The Theory and Practice of Disputation at Princeton,
Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania from 1750 to 1800," unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1943, pp. 35-36 and 150 ff. Forensic
disputations appear to have been about equally used from the first at King's. Evi-
dence is poor on early practices at William and Mary. Minor changes occurred in
the Harvard laws of 1723.

21. MacLean, op. cit., I, 266-267, quoting Finley's "An Account of the College
of New Jersey" (1764), pp. 23-30.

22. Cf. studies of Potter, Pagcl, and Thomas as well as the histories of the early
colleges.

23. Writings, ed. A. H. Smyth (New York, 1905-1907), III, 29.

24. Ibid., II, 386-396.

25. Quincy, op. cit., II, 124, 127, 129, 132. The laws of 1767 earned similar
provisions. "Harvard College Records," PCSM, XXXI, 352-353, section VII: "All
the Classes shall attend with their respective Tutors on Saturday Mornings for
Instruction in Theology, Elocution, Composition, Rhetoric & Belles Lettres/* The
semiannual exhibitions before the Overseers were abandoned in 1781 for quarterly
exercises before the "President, Professors, Tutors."

26. MacLean, op. cit., I, 362.

27. Pagel, op. cit., pp. 88-108.

28. Guild, op. cit., p. 345; Potter, op. cit., p. 36.

29. IWd.,p.36.

30. Potter, op. cit., pp. 66-67; Pagel, op. cit., pp. 108-125.

31. Testimony Against the Prophaneness of Some of the Public Disputes (Bos-
ton, 1760).

32. Potter, op. cit., p. 29, from the "Student Diary of John Quincy Adams" in
Henry Adams, Historical Essays, p. 113, May 23, 1786, and J. Q. Adams, Writings,
I, 24, June 14, 1786.

33. MacLean, op. cit., pp. 253 ff; Pennsylvania Gazette, October 21, 1762;
Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIII, 53.

34. For these criticisms in greater detail, see Potter, pp. 29-32, and the disser-
tations of Ota Thomas and Elaine Pagel, cited above.

35. Cf. Potter, op. cit.f pp. 43-47, for these and other samples of forensic theses.

RHETORICAL PRACTICE IN COLONIAL AMERICA 79

36. Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, VII, 281-288.

37. Pamphlet (Boston, 1773). The text, pp. 3-48, suggests either a long debate
or speeches amplified for publication.

38. Cf. Stiles, Diary, for various dates, 1779-1785.

39. MacLean, op. cit., I, 216-217; PMHB, XXIII, 53.

40. J. Q. Adams, Writings, I, 27.

41. See also Stiles* timing of commencements.

42. W. J. Mills, Glimpses of Colonial Society (Philadelphia, 1903), pp. 156-159.
Also note an essay promised in a letter of 1769 to John Davenport at Princeton, and
a letter of Paterson to Aaron Burr, 1772: "Be pleased to accept of the inclosed Essay
on Dancing; if you pitch upon it as the subject of your next discourse, it may per-
haps furnish you with a few hints, and enable you to compose it with more facility
and dispatch." American Antiquarian Society Proceedings, XXIX, 54.

43. Holyoke Diaries 1709-1856 (Salem, 1911), June 27, 1766; June 29, 1765;
July 5, 1767; July 1, 1768. Pennsylvania Gazette, May 26, 1773, October 21, 1762;
MacLean, op. cit., I, 253 ff; Mills, op. cit., p. 60, November 16, 1768; Chastellux,
Travels in North America (London, 1787), I, 229. Congress, the French Minister,
and Pennsylvania officials were also present. PMHB, XXIII, 53, November 17, 1767.

44. An Oration on Early Education (Dresden, 1779). Spoken by Samuel Wood,
who later helped prepare Daniel Webster for Dartmouth College.

45. Manuscript, Dartmouth College Archives, August 28, 1771.

46. Cf. Yale Fellowship Club, 1766; Linonia at Yale, 1783, Phi Beta Kappa,
Dartmouth, 1781; and Potter, op. cit., pp. 71-74.

47. Pagel, op. cit., pp. 115-117.

48. Yale, Dartmouth, College of New Jersey, and Harvard had developed the
stronger societies by the end of this period.

T: English Sources of Rhetorical Theory in
Nineteenth-Century America

CLARENCE W. EDNEY

English theory thoroughly permeated instruction in public address
in American colleges and universities during the nineteenth century.
And the English treatises that dominated the field were those of John
Ward, George Campbell, Hugh Blair, and Richard Whately.1 This
paper, therefore, will review and compare the theories of these giants
of the English scene, and, in order to present a complete picture of
trends, will introduce comment concerning other not-to-be-neglected
English writers.

General Perspective

Whereas the Ramean rhetoric of style and delivery had been favored
in early American instruction,2 the English theories that controlled the
classrooms in the nineteenth century were classical in basic tendency.
However, tfie intellectual controversies and achievements of the early
modern age modified classical rhetoric in directions that cut deeply into
American thought.

Ward's System of Oratory

John WajxTs, 3 §ystem of Oratory ^ is ^^ rep/esentative of one cujrcent of
English theory that is exclusively classical in tendency.4 Published
posthumously in 1759, it is an 863 page, two volume, simplified, repeti-
tion of classical tenets. Pol theory, Wardle^ns JHQ§f heavily upon Quin-
tilian; i or ffiustetion, he depends very largely wpOti Cfetex tie cfevotes
one lecture to a review of the origin and development of rhetoric, one
to the nature of oratory, one to the divisions of oratory, eight to inven-
tion, eight to disposition, twenty-seven to elocution ( including three on
the subject of history), five to pronunciation, and three to the things

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 81

(nature, art, and practice) necessary to develop skill in oratory. Possibly
George Campbell was thinking of the System when he complained that
theories of rhetoric published up to his time were only the observations
of classical writers "put into a modish dress and new arrangement"

Ward gathers in the thinking of both Cicero and Quintilian when he
defines oratory as "the art of speaking well upon any subject in order
to persuade." 5 To speak well, the orator must speak justly, method-
ically, floridly, and copiously.6 And, although the principal aim of ora-
tory is to persuade, the speaker often attempts, as subordinate objective,
to delight and conciliate.7 He limits the parts of oratory to invention,
disposition, elocution, and pronunciation, including memory under pro-
nunciation "to which it seems most properly to relate." 8

Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric and Lectures on
Pulpit Eloquence

To George Campbell 9 we are indebted for two treatises, his Philoso-
phy of Rhetdric^ published in 1776, an^ his work on homiletics pub-
lished posthumously (1807) as the last twelve chapters of Lectures on
Systematic Theology and Pulpit Eloquence. Possibly because it de-
mands rigorous scholarship, the Philosophy was less popular in Ameri-
can colleges than Blair's Lectures.10 The work on pulpit eloquence went
through many editions, but we have no exact account of places or fre-
quency of use in America.

Both treatises must be studied in order to obtain a complete view of
the theories advanced by this Presbyterian divine.11 They are written
with different aims in view. The ^Philosophy attempts to ascertain "the
radical principles of that art, whose object itis, by , the .use o£ language,
to operate upon tho soul of the hearer." 12 It is perhaps one of the most
penetrating examinations of the psychological, epistemological, philo-
sophical, and literary bases of rhetoric that has been produced in the
long and proud history of the discipline, and was evaluated by Richard
Whately as a work that is "incomparably superior" to that of Dr. Blair,
"not only in depth of thought and ingenious original research, but also
in practical utility to the student/' 13 The volume on homiletics is, essen-
tially, a handbook for the preacher who, with little training in public
address, must officiate acceptably in the pulpit. Neither book attempts
to provide "a full' institute of rhetoric."

Campbell's definition of eloquence as "that art or talent, whereby the
speech is adapted to produce, in the hearer the great end which the
speaker has, or at least ought to have principally in view" is stated in
almost identical terminology in both works. So is his explanation of the
ends of eloquence, which departs so definitely from classical concept

82 THE HERITAGE

and has had such permanent impact upon modern theories of rhetoric.

From this essential starting point, each treatise moves in the direc-
tion of its particular objective. The Philosophy penetrates deeply into
the nature of wit, humoi*, and ridicule, into the sources of evidence, into
a consideration of audience, into an examination of the differences in
orations delivered at the bar, in the senate, and from the pulpit, and
into the nature of language and its use in rhetoric. The Lectures are
devoted primarily to lessons in pronunciation, elocution, and disposi-
tion.14 And, because he believes that disposition is intimately connected
with the intent of a speech, Campbell gives us, in the Lectures, a much
more complete explanation of the ends of eloquence than is found in
the Philosophy. Any given speech has, as its ultimate aim, one of four
objectives: to enlighten the understanding, to please the imagination,
to move the passions, or to influence the will. The understanding is
reached either by a speech to inf orni or a speech to convince. The imagi-
nation is stimulated by discourse which exhibits "a lively and beautiful
representation of a suitable object." The passions are moved by address
which stimulates emotion or desire. The will is influenced by speech
which concurrently moves the passions and directs these passions by
means of rational appeals.

Unquestionably Campbell's analysis was influenced by the practical,
epistemological, inductive character of seventeenth and eighteenth cen-
tury English philosophical thought. Undoubtedly the inspiration for
his orientation of rhetoric toward a "science of human nature" and his
itemization of the ends of eloquence is to be found in works of Lord
Kames,15 Francis Bacon,16 John Locke,17 and David Hume.18

Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres

In 1783, after almost a quarter-century of oral presentation, Hugh
Blair published his smooth-flowing Le$ttire$ on Rhetoric and Belles
Lettres.^ Instantly popular in American colleges, the treatise is repre-
sentative of the belles l^ttristjc-critical current of English theory.20

In his preface, Blair expresses the hope that the Lectures will provide
a comprehensive work for those who "are studying to cultivate their
taste, to form their style, or to prepare themselves for publie speaking
or, opposition.** 21 In line with these aims, he provides the reader with
four disquisitions on taste, two on the rise and progress of language,
two on the structure of language, fifteen on style, eleven on eloquence,
one each on historical and philosophical writing, eight on poetry, and
one each on tragedy and comedy.

In typical pedagogical fashion, Blair reviews the benefits of study
of rhetoric and bettes lettres. The individual who desires to improve his

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 83

eloquence is told that the rules of rhetoric will "assist genius/' strengthen
accuracy of thought, correct slovenly expression, and help in "distin-
guishing false ornament from true." The individual who does not intend
to speak in public is told that the principles of belles lettres teach us

"tnjujrmVft ar^ fp hlflm^Ljma'fh jnrigmnni- " Attention to this "speculative

science" improves our knowledge of human nature, exercises our rea-
son without tiring it, provides employment for leisure time, refreshes the
mind after the "labor of abstract study," raises the mind "above the
attachments of sense," increases sensibility "to all of the tender and
humane passions," weakens the more violent and fierce emotions, "dis-
poses the heart to virtue," and furnishes material for "fashionable topics
of discourse." 22

In spite of this deflection of rhetoric in the direction of fine literature,
Blair holds to a solid and defensible philosophy of the subject. If these
lectures have any merit, he says, "it will consist in an endeavor to substi-
tute the application of these principles in the place of artificial and
scholastic rhetoric; in an endeavor to explode false ornament, to direct
attention more towards substance than show, to recommend good sense
as the foundation of all good composition, and simplicity as essential to
all true ornament." 23 Moreover, he follows Campbell's lead in expand-
ing the scope of rhetoric. "To be truly eloquent is to speak to the pur-
pose. . . . Whenever a man speaks or writes, he is supposed, as a rational
being, to have some end in view; either to inform, or to amuse, or to
persuade, or, in some other way to act upon his fellow creatures." The
lowest degree of eloquence is that which aims only at pleasing the
hearers. A somewhat higher degree of eloquence is that through which
the speaker attempts, not only to please, but to inform, to instruct, to
convince. The highest degree of eloquence is that used to influence
conduct and persuade to action.24

Whatelys Elements of Logic and Essentials of Rhetoric

For tl|e purpose of this study we are primarily concerned with two of
Richard Whately's ninety-seven published works, his Elements of Logic
(1826) and his Elements of Rhetoric (1828).25 Undoubtedly Whately
considered them companion volumes; each contains numerous cross
references to the other, and the Rhetoric, in the section on refutation,
refers the reader to the Logic for a discussion of fallacies.

oflo^

<**ii|wwi!i«fi«E«»w8ii< * *" O o J. o

a^^^Giic respectability /But he was deeply indebted to Edward Copies-
ton, his undergraduate tutor at Oriel College, Oxford, for many of his
ideas about it. This indebtedness he freely acknowledges in the dedica-

84 THE HEBITACE

tory and prefatoiy pages of the Logic before providing the reader in
Book I with an "Analytical Outline of the Science/' in Book II with a
"Synthetical Compendium" of principles, in Book III with an explana-
tion "of fallacies/' in Book IV with a "Dissertation on the Province of
Reasoning/' and, in the Appendix, with one of the very best tracts ever
written "On Certain Terms Which Are Peculiarly Liable to be Used
Ambiguously." 2G

Although probably less renowned for his Rhetoric than for his Logic,
Whately is largely responsible for initiating that trend of theory which
'moved rapidly in the direction of a rhetoric of argumentation and
debate. His stated objective is to treat of "argumentative composition,
generally and exclusively? However, his "middle ground" becomes
quite broad and he produces a text which interprets rhetoric as the art
of speaking to instruct, to convince, and to persuade. Part I is devoted
to a consideration "Of the Address to the Understanding, With a View
to Produce Conviction (Including Instruction)/' Part II is concerned
with an examination "Of The Address to the Will, or Persuasion/' Part
III considers "Style/' and Part IV philosophizes upon "Elocution or
Delivery."

Whately felt a need to mitigate prejudice against instruction in
rhetoric and, in the course of his effort, offers some excellent advice
concerning the teaching of ^speech. Reasoning that prejudice stems from
observation of the cramped efforts of learners, he recommends four
policies: first, that topics for speaking be drawn from the studies in which
the learner is engaged, from the content of conversations to which the
student has listened with interest, and from the student's every-day
activities; secondly, that the rules inculcated be based upon broad
philosophical principles; third, that sedulous care be taken in correc-
tion; and fourth, that the teacher offer continuous encouragement.
Strangely, he considers debating societies more harmful than beneficial
because "students are apt, when prematurely hurried into a habit of
fluent elocution, to retain through life a careless facility of pouring forth
ill-digested thoughts in well-turned phrases, and an aversion to cautious
reflection." 27

There is no mistaking the fact that the Rhetoric is the product of a
theologian who was much involved in the religious controversy of his
time. In it one finds not only indications of a practical view of Chris-
tianity but the mark of a divine who would fight the Rationalists with
their own weaponsfTnus the Rhetoric., at times, seems to be overly con-
cerned with techniques of defense. And, undoubtedly, Whately's ex-
haustive treatment of "testimony" and his originality in supplying us
with the theory of "presumption" and "burden of proof grew 0ut of
his unceasing effort to clarify and defend Christian evidences.2

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 85

haps, too, this devotion not only prompted but gave rigidity to his
strange theory of induction.

Priestley's Course of Lectures on Oratory and
Criticism

Joseph Pjiestley's A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism 29
is mentioned because it is an interesting attempt to utilize David
Hartley's doctrine of the association of ideas, and because some
comment seems necessary in order to complete the picture of currents
of theory in later English rhetoric. The work had little impact upon
American instruction. And, although it must not be ignored, it obviously
is the product of restless intellectual energy rather than penetrating
study of the theory of rhetoric.

The salient characteristics of this work, first published in 1781, are
three: the first is the reduction of all composition to two kinds, narration
and argumentation; the second is the belief that the principal objective
of every speaker is to "inform the judgment, and thereby direct the
practice" (attempts to please and to affect are admissible only when
"subservient to that design"); and the third is the treatment of all aspects
of rhetoric, aside from limited discussions of topica, techniques of am-
plification, and methods of arrangement, under a broad concept of style.

Such, then, are the general points of view of the chief English rhetori-
cians who were well known to American students and teachers of rheto-
ric in the nineteenth century. We shall now compare their views of
four of the five divisions of classical rhetoric. Although Ward was the
only writer among this group of English rhetoricians who discussed his
theory under the classical divisions of inuentio, dispositio, elocutio, and
pronunciato, it seems wise, for the sake of clarity, to utilize this tradi-
tional partition in this paper. Because major attention to the classical
division of memoria virtually disappeared in the writings of these
theorists, it will be noticed only in passing.

Invention

All of these writers* by implication or by direct statement, insist that
broad*Sowiedge and thorough command of subject are tha^Qwces of
th|Tmaterials of invention. Blair calls for a "proper acquaintance with
the rest of tlie liberal arts." Campbell suggests that "everything that
serves to improve knowledge, discernment, and good sense" is valuable
to the orator. Ward declares that "great learning and extensive knowl-
edge" as well as "a lively imagination" and "readiness of thought" are
of great help in invention. Whately implies a similar point of view.30

86 THE HEKITAGE

Logical Proof

Without exception, the English theorists agree about the close rela-
tionship of rhetoric and logic. Whately declares that rhetoric is an
"off-shoot of logic/' and Campbell insists that eloquence is "but a par-
ticular application of the logician's art." Ward protests the Ramean
tendency to divorce invention and disposition from rhetoric, and states
emphatically that both rhetoric and logic teach us to reason from
causes, effects, circumstances, etc., even though there are, between the
two, differences in aim as well as in kinds of proofs used. Blair declares
that reason and argument are the "foundations of eloquence." 31

When theories are compared, however, striking differences appear in
concept as well as in approach to the problem of disco vering~logical
proofs.

Although Ward is sceptical of the worth of topoi, he suggests that
they may lessen the difficulty of finding arguments. He divides them
into internal and external topics, corresponding to Aristotle's division
of proofs into artificial and inartificial. From Quintilian's list,3- he
selects sixteen internal commonplaces. He reduces the Roman rhetori-
cian's list of external commonplaces to three forms of "human testimony
(writings, witnesses, and contracts), and adds, as a major division,
divine testimony (which is "incontestable").33 Also, he follows Quin-
tilian 34 to the letter in explaining the "conjectural" state, the "definitive"
state, and the state of "quality."

In line with classical theory, Ward distinguishes between the discov-
ery of arguments and argumentation. Consequently, the "forms of rea-
soning used by orators" are considered in that section of his System
devoted to dispositio. They are syllogism, enthymeme, induction, and
example. And it is here that he displays his greatest inadequacy. His ex-
planation of syllogism is weak and incomplete. He believes, erroneously
that the only way that enthymeme differs from syllogism is in the omis-
sion of one of the premises.35 His illustrations of "induction" and his
explanation of "example" lead one to feel that, in both cases, he is
thinking in terms of literal analogy. When he states, finally, that "the
whole induction or example has the nature of an enthymeme," we rec-
ognize that, had Ward been a more penetrating thinker, his theory of
argumentation might have resembled that of Richard Whately.

Blair discounts completely the usefulness of the classical equipment
for finding arguments. And, because he doubts if any kind of explana-
tion will be helpful to the student, detours this particular aspect of the
theory of rhetoric.

CampbeE, in presenting his readers with a discussion of "logical
truth" remains consistent with his desire to trace the jnind's "principal

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 87

channels of perception and action, as near as possible, to their source/'
He does not pretend to advance a theory of logic as such. Perhaps, as
Whately charges, he misunderstood the real nature and function of
logic. Influenced by a century of English philosophical thought, he was
very much concerned about the sources of knowledge. It is worth
mentioning that the epistemological approach to logical proof was not
unique to Campbell. Quintilian, many centuries earlier, had pointed out
that "unless there be something which is true, or what appears to be
true, and from which support may be gained for what is doubtful,
there will be no grounds on which we can prove anything." 36

In a bold statement that disavows the whole theory of perception
through "ideas" (which lies at the heart of Hume's scepticism), and
aligns his thinking with that of Thomas Reid,37 Campbell declares that
"logical truth" consists in "the conformity of our conceptions to their
archetypes in the nature of things." This conformity of concept and
object is perceived either "intuitively" upon bare attention or "deduc-
tively" by comparing related concepts. We arrive at "first truths" intui-
tively and immediately through intellection, consciousness, and common
sense.38 We know immediately through "intellection" the truth of such
propositions as "the whole is greater than the part." We know im-
mediately through "consciousness" the truth of the fact that we exist,
feel, think, and so forth. We know immediately through "common
sense" the truth of statements like "whatever has a beginning has a
cause." We arrive at other truths by a process of reasoning in which we
compare intuitive truth with related perceptions. These truths may be
either demonstrative (certain) or moral (probable).39 Demonstrative
truth is derived from the "invariable properties or relations of general
ideas." Moral truth (or variant degrees of likelihood) is obtained by
comparing intuitive truth with the evidence of experience, analogy, and
testimony.40

In his explanation of "experience," Campbell provides us not only
with a description of the essential preliminary condition to scientific
induction which Mill calls "unscientific practice" but also with a rela-
tively advanced view of causation in the theory of induction. And,
although he accepts the constancy of nature's laws as the fundamental
principle of induction, Campbell does not, as did Whately, jump to the
conclusion that every induction is a syllogism in which the suppressed
major premise is a proposition that declares the uniformity of nature.41
Both Campbell and Whately attempt to apply the mathematics of
probability to the weighing of evidence and argument in rhetoric.

he says,
should be completed and conclusions should be reached before argu-

88 THE HERITAGE

mentative composition starts; and the first step in the process of compo-
sition, although not necessarily so in final argumentation, is to lay down
these conclusions or propositions.42

Whereas Campbell represents an extreme position which holds that
the syllogism is useless, Whately speaks for the opposite view which
declares that the syllogism is the universal type of inference. It is cus-
tomary, he says, "to argue in the enthymematic form, and to call . . . the
expressed premise of the enthymeme, the argument by which the con-
clusion is proved/' 43

Arguments are those propositions which serve as premises. When
classified in regard to the "relation of the subject-matter of the premise
to that of the conclusion" they fall into two major groups: first, those
that can be used "to account for the fact or principle maintained, sup-
posing its truth granted;" and second, "those that cannot be so used." 44

The first class isjaj^piaa In saying that "if the

Cause be fully sufficient, and no impediments intervene, the Effect in
question follows certainly; and the nearer we approach to this, the
stronger the argument/' and also in stating that "this is the kind of
argument which produces (when short of absolute certainty) that spe-
cies of the Probable which is usually called the Plausible/' Whately
appears to include all causal argument, probable and necessary.45 And,
although he improves upon these criteria for testing causal reasoning in
his analysis of the fallacy of non causa pro causa, the Archbishop of
Dublin is to be criticized for ignoring the discussions of plurality of
causes and combinations of causes and conditions which were available
to him in the works of Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Watts, and Mill.

4E£iS^
[t is ratio cognescendi or reason for knowing.46 From some signs, we

2an infer either the certain or probable "cause" of an effect or phenom-
snon. From others, we can infer some "condition" without which the
sffect could not exist. Argument from testimony is a species of sign. We
reason that, because testimony exists, the fact attested is true (the truth
Df what is attested is a "condition" of the testimony having been given) .
When testimony is to a matter of fact,4'7 we evaluate it by questioning
the honesty of the witness, his accuracy, and his means of getting infor-
mation. When the testimony is to a matter of opinion,418 it is necessary
to enquire as to the ability of the individual to form a judgment Testi-
mony is strengthened if it is inimical to the known prejudices of the
attestor, if it is corroborated by many witnesses (assuming that the
testimony is original and not hearsay), if it comes through incidental
hints or oblique allusions and is therefore undesigned, if it leads to a
conclusion that the attestor would be unwilling to admit, if it agrees

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 89

with generally known statements which remain uncontradicted, if, in
case of concurrent testimony, there has been no opportunity for concert
and especially when rivalry or hostility exists between the attestors, and
if it is improbable that the thing attested could have been imagined or
invented.49

Example, the second division of sign, includes arguments usually
designated by the terms induction, experience, and analogy. In argu-
ments such as these "we consider one or more, known, individual
objects or instances, of a certain class, as a fair sample, in respect of
some point or other of that class; and, consequently draw an inference
from them respecting either the whole class, or other, less known, indi-
viduals of it." The term "induction" is applied to arguments that stop
short at the general conclusion. Inductions can be stated in syllogistic
form because, in all cases, there exists a major premise which assumes
"that the instance or instances induced are sufficient to authorize the
conclusion." 50 The term "experience" applies to the premises from
which we argue and not to the conclusion we reach.51 The term
"analogy" is used for argument in which we reason from one thing to
another thing, both of which are similar in "relation."1 Whately here
seems to be confined to figurative analogy, and seems to have over-
looked the implications of Campbell's thinking on the subject.

There is "no distinct class of refutatory argument;" 52 arguments
become such because they are used either to prove the opposite of a
proposition or to over-throw the arguments by which the proposition
has been supported. In the first instance, the argument is only "acci-
dentally refutatory" in that it can be developed in the absence of oppos-
ing argument. In the second instance, the argument consists of exposure
of fallacies.53

In every fallacy, Whately writes, the conclusion either does or does
not follow from the premises. Where conclusions do not follow, the
fault is in the reasoning, and these, therefore, are called logical falla-
cies. They are subdivided into (1) purely logical fallacies which exhibit
their fallaciousness by the bare form of the expression without respect
for the meaning of terms, and (2) semi-logical fallacies which are
"cases of ambiguous middle term except its non-distribution." Purely
logical fallacies would include (a) undistributed middle, (6) illicit
process, (c) negative premises or affirmative conclusion from a negative
premise and vice versa, and (d) more than three terms. Semi-logical
fallacies result from (a) ambiguities in language or (b) ambiguities in
context.

Where the conclusion does follow from the premises, the fallacies are
called nonlogical, or material fallacies. Of these there are two kinds:
those in which the premises are such as ought not to have been assumed,

90 THE HERITAGE

and those in which the conclusion is not the one required. Nonlogical
fallacies, in which the premise is unduly assumed, has two species,
petitio principii, "in which one of the Premises either is manifestly the
same in sense with the Conclusion, or is actually proved from it," and
non causa, or false cause, in which there is "undue assumption, of a
Premise that is not equivalent to, or dependent on, the Conclusion."
Nonlogical fallacies in which the conclusion is irrelevant (ignoratio
elenchi) break down into the fallacy of objections, the fallacy of shift-
ing ground, the fallacy of using complex general terms, the fallacy of
appeals to the passions (argumentum ad hominem, ad verecundiam,
and so forth), and the fallacy of proving a part and suppressing the rest
of the question.54

Whately warns his readers that, in reasoning in the realm of probabili-
ties, there are likely to be sound arguments and valid objections on both
sides of a proposition and, consequently, it is possible that solid argu-
ments may be advanced against one that is true. Therefore, it is wise to
concede the strength of objections that are unanswerable. Weak
advocates can do harm to a cause for the reason that they are easily
answered, leaving the impression that all arguments which could have
been advanced have been destroyed. For the same reason, it is danger-
ous to advance more arguments than can be maintained. Psycho-
logically, an elaborate attack upon arguments is likely to enhance their
importance or to result in audience refusal of the refutatory remarks.
Furthermore, it is wise to confine arguments to those that "are directly
accessible to the persons addressed," and sometimes it becomes neces-
sary to trace an erroneous opinion directly to its source.

Emotional Proof

Among the English rhetoricians, -Q^£g£C^£^^. is the only theorist
wK^rtttettlpts a thorough and systematic examination of the pathetic.
Why, he asks, does the pathetic, "which consists chiefly in exhibitions of
human misery," hold our attention? What is the cause of "that pleasure
which we receive from objects or representations that excite pity and
other painful feelings?" After examining and expressing dissatisfaction
with the hypotheses of Abbe Du Bos, Fontenelle, Hume, and Hobbes,
he presents his own, and condttdes that the pkasnre In p%*^iiaes
"from its own natur$.jQEjrom the nature of those passions of which it is
Compounded and not fooni ai^I!^ The

observations that lead him to this conclusion are, first, that all oflEe

^epteasanTlTove, joy,
""

hope; gratitude, pride) ,q,nd the painful ""( hafreS, grief, fear, anger,
shame); second, that there is "an attraction or association anpucm the

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 91

passions"; third, that "pain of every kind generally makes a deeper
impression on -the imagination than pleasure does, and is longer re-
tained by memory"; fourth, that, if pleasant passions predominate
among a "group" of both pleasant and painful passions, there arises
often "a greater and more durable pleasure to the mind, than would
result from these, if alone and unmixed"; fifth, that "under the name
pity may be included all the emotions excited by tragedy"; and sixth,
that "pity is not a simple passion, but a group of passions united by
association, and as it were blended, by centering in the same object." 55

Whately accepts Dugald Stewart's division of the passions into "appe-
tites, desires, and affections," to which he adds "self-love" and "con-
science." These he calls "the active principles of our nature." Ward is
satisfied to speak of "commotions of the mind." 56

Our authors are in complete agreement as to the place of emotional
appeal in persuasive discourse. Ward insists that it be used only to
influence men to act "agreeably to reason." Campbell, Blair, and
Whately admit that there can be no persuasion without appeal to the
passions but insist that, rhetorically and ethically, conviction of the
understanding comes first.57

Talent in the use of emotional proof, says Blair, is not gained from a
philosophical knowledge of the passions but rather from "a certain
strong and happy sensibility of mind." He recommends that the speaker
consider whether the subject will admit the pathetic, seize the critical
moment that is favorable to emotion in whatever part of the discourse
it occurs, paint the object of the passion in the most striking and natural
manner, be moved himself, he bold and ardent, use simple and unaf-
fected language, beware of digressions and comparisons, beware of too
much reasoning, and never attempt to prolong the pathetic too far.58

No passion, declares Whately, is aroused by thinking about it per sey
but "by thinking about, and attending to, such objects that are calcu-
lated to awaken it." He suggests that the speaker dwell upon the
circumstances of the case at hand, use comparison, and either openly
display the feeling to be conveyed or appear laboring to suppress it. In
no case should address to the passions be introduced as such. If it seems
unlikely that the occasion or object at hand will excite the desired emo-
tion, the speaker may turn attention to that which will raise the feeling;
once aroused, the passion may be turned in the direction required.59

Campbell explains that circumstances "chiefly instrumental" in oper-
ating on the passions are (1) probability, (2) plausibility, (3) impor-
tance, (4) proximity of time, (5) connection of place, (6) relation to
the persons concerned, and (7) interest in the circumstances. An unfav-
orable passion is calmed by annihilating or diminishing the object which
raised it, or by exciting some other passion that will overcome it.60

92 THE HERITAGE

On the surface, Campbell, Blair, and Whately seem to dichotomize
"rea'son** and "emotion." None of them, however, seems to think in terms
of a strict division of human powers. Unquestionably, their attempt to
analyze and clarify the aims of public address, as well as the limitations
of language, led them to speak but not necessarily to think in terms of
separate human "powers," Campbell, at least, would have been aware
of Locke's warning that this way of speaking "has misled many into a
confused notion of so many distinct agents in us." G1

Ethical Proof

English concepts of ethical proof are, encompassed in Ward's explana-
tion' of it as "the means by which the speaker conciliates the minds of
his hearers, gains their affection, and recommends both himself and
what he says to their good opinion and esteem." G2 Ward, Campbell,
and Blair lean toward Quintilian's philosophy that the speaker must be
a good man in order to recommend himself to an audience. Whately
leans in the opposite direction and declares, specifically, that he is
talking about "the impression produced in the minds of the hearers"
rather than the real character of the speaker.63

Whately follows Aristotle in stating that the character to be estab-
lished is that of good principle, good sense, and good will64 Ward
insists that the speaker display the qualities of wisdom, integrity,
benevolence, and modesty.65 The speaker will more easily gain assent
if he appears to be convinced of the truth of his position,60 and if he
appears to be of the same party as the hearers.67 The speaker should
express wise, amiable, and generous sentiments.68 He should avoid in-
consistency,69 direct self -commendation,70 and a display of oratorical
skill.71 To allay prejudice, the speaker should turn the emotion in an-
other direction or excite a contrary state of mind.72 Also he should make
concessions, defer appropriately to the judgment of his hearers, and
request that they attend exclusively to the subject.73

Disposition

In English theory, much of the judgment, selection, and adaptation
assigned to dispositio by classical writers is siphoned into other divi-
sions of rhetoric or is concentrated under a consideration of audience.
In general, that which is left to di&positio is decision concerning the
arrangement, adaptation, and proportionment of the parts of a speech.74

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 93

Arrangement

In general, and with only slight differences from theory to theory, the
English rhetoricians choose to follow Cicero's six-part division of a
speech into introduction, narration, proposition, confirmation, refuta-
tioh, and conclusion. Probably the only important variation from typical
instruction is Campbell's stipulation that the conclusion of every ser-
mon should be persuasive in nature.

Audience

Probably the distinguishing characteristic of English instruction con-
cerning adaptation to audience is location in the rhetorical systems.
Campbell gives a special section of his Philosophy to a consideration
of the audience, but the bulk of Whately's comment falls within his
discussion of persuasion. Blair scatters his relatively few and general
comments throughout his treatise. Ward spreads his ideas concerning
adaptation into three places in his System, into his explanation of the
use of topoi in commendatory and deliberative speeches, into his lec-
tures on the passions, and into his consideration of ethical proof.

The most careful analysis of audience is found in Campbell's Philoso-
phy. Drawing upon Aristotle, he declares that hearers must be con-
sidered both "as men in general" and "as men in particular'' or, in other
words, as men having certain general similarities and as men having
certain specific differences. Men in general are endowed with under-
standing, imagination, memory, and passions. In adapting discourse to
understanding, the speaker is concerned about the clearness and sim-
plicity of his proofs, his reasoning, and his language. In order to stimu-
late imagination, he makes sure that his ideas are vivacious, beautiful,
sublime, or novel. In accommodating discourse to memory, he attempts
to facilitate the "association of ideas/' In attempting to touch the pas-
sions, he "communicates lively and glowing ideas of the object." Men
in particular are different in intellectual attainment, behavior, habit,
and occupation. Also they are different from group to group.75 All
aspects of the discourse must be adapted to these specific differences.

Our other theorists contribute nothing that is not encompassed in
Campbell's analysis. Whately, however, reminds his readers that,
although the speaker uses "all precautions not inconsistent with his
object" to avoid displeasing his hearers, 'Tie who would claim highest
rank as an orator . . . must be the one who is the most successful, not in
gaining popular applause, but in carrying his point, whatever it be." 76

94 THE HERITAGE

Elocution

"Elocution directs us to suit both the words and the expressions of a
discourse to the nature of the subject/' explains John Ward. "General
elocution" is concerned with "elegance" (purity and perspicuity), "com-
position" (turn and harmony of periods), and "dignity" (tropes and
figures) of language. "Particular elocution" makes use of the constitu-
ents of general elocution to form the low, middle, and sublime styles. To
become master of a good style an orator must be endowed with a vigor-
ous mind, a lively fancy, good judgment, and a strong memory. And
style must be adapted to the subject, the time, the place, the hearers,
and "other circumstances." 7r

"General elocution," as explained by Ward, conforms closely with
Cicero's discussion of "embellishment of language." His division of "par-
ticular elocution" is definitely a repetition of Cicero's discussion of three
"forms" or "complexions" of eloquence.78 This comparison helps to
clarify the various referents of the word "style" in the works of our
English rhetoricians. Blair uses the word to encompass both of Cicero's
( and Ward's ) divisions of elocution. Campbell and Whately abandon
Cicero's "forms" of eloquence, and limit their thinking to what Ward
calls "general elocution" and Cicero labels "embellishment."

Hugh Blair defines style as "the peculiar manner in which a man
expresses his conceptions, by means of language." And he divides this
aspect of rhetoric into "perspicuity" and "ornament." His explanation of
perspicuity is typical: words must be pure, proper, and precise; sen-
tence structure must be clear, exact, unified, strong, and harmonious.
He warns that ornament is liable to abuse, but provides a full catalog
of figurative language as well as an exhaustive analysis of twelve differ-
ent forms or complexions of eloquence. To this, he appends suggestions
for the attainment of good style. These suggestions are perhaps Blair's
most important contribution to the subject. Study the subject, he says,
and "think closely" about it. Become acquainted with the style of the
best authors, but remember that "servile imitation" is dangerous. Obtain
frequent practice in composing, and remember that style must be
adapted to both the subject and the capacity of the hearers. Above all,
do not allow attention to style to take precedence over attention to
thought79

Campbell's treatment of elocution seems to have been influenced by
four factors; first, English philosophical thought concerning the rela-
tionship of language and knowledge; second, observation of the difficul-
ties in communication brought on by provincial dialects; third, eight-
eenth-century concern about the meaning of words; and fourth,
Quintilian's elaborate discussion of style.

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 95

As interested as he was in the sources of knowledge, it would have
been inconceivable for Campbell to neglect the nature, use, and signi-
fication of language as it relates to knowledge. Along with Bacon,
Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, he insists that words, if used with meaning,
must have clear reference to something. Hobbes and Campbell believe
that this reference is to things actually existing and actually appre-
hended. Locke and Hume believe that the reference is to "ideas." The
issue, is, of course, one which has to do with the reality of knowledge.
There is no disagreement about the fact that unless language has dis-
tinct and specific reference to the object of which it is a sign, it is pure
jargon. In the works of these men we find the basic tenets of what has,
of late, come to be called general semantics.80

While serving in his country parish, Banchory Ternan, Campbell be-
came concerned about dialects. And later, as a professor of pulpit elo-
quence at Marischal College, he warned his students that "if you attach
yourself to a provincial dialect, it is a hundred to one, that many of
your words and phrases will be misunderstood in the very neighboring
province, district, or county." S1 To overcome the fault, he recom-
mended that his students study the best grammarians and the best
English authors.

Evidence of English interest in the meaning of words is found in the
publication of dictionaries. Samuel Johnson's fascinating Dictionary
(1755) had been followed by John Walker's Critical Pronouncing Dic-
tionary and Expositor of the English Language (1791), Thomas Sheri-
dan's General Dictionary of the English Languages (1780), John
Ash's New And Complete Dictionary (1775), and William Kendrick's
New Dictionary (1773). It had been preceded by Nathaniel Bailey's
Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1721), Edward Phillip's
New Worlde of Wordes (1658), and Henry Cockeram's Dictionary
(1623).

Following the lead of Quintilian,82 Campbdl divides elocution into
two kinds: "grammatical" and "rhetorical." The "grammatical art*' is the
foundation of the "rhetorical art/' The highest aim of the former is the
lowest aim of the latter. But the two overlap. Grammar looks toward
"syntax" or the composition of words into one sentence. Oratory looks
toward "style" or both the composition of words into sentences and the
composition of many sentences into a discourse.83 The orator must not
only be master of tiie lariguage he speaks but he also must be capable
of adding to grammatical purity "those higher qualities of elocution,
which will render his discourse graceful and energetic." In regard to
grammar, Campbell designates "use" as the supreme authority over
language as long as it is "reputable," "national," and "present." He
provides us with nine canons by which the speaker may be guided

96 THE HERITAGE

in the selection or rejection of words and expressions. Achievement
of "grammatical purity/' he says, is the common aim of both gram-
marian and orator. Purity of the English tongue may be injured,
first, by "barbarism" or the use of obsolete, new, or "new-modeled"
words, second, by "solecism" or violation of the rules of syntax,
and third, by "impropriety," or failure to use words to express pre-
cise meaning. In regard to style, Campbell insists that, in addition to
being pure, it must be perspicuous, vivacious, elegant, animated, and
musical. He elaborates upon only two of these qualities. Perspicuity is
violated by speaking obscurely, ambiguously, or unintelligibly. Vivac-
ity results from the use of language that imitates things, the use of
specific terms, and the use of tropes, as well as from brevity in the use
of words, variety in the arrangement of sentences, and inconspicuous-
ness in the use of connectives.84

Unfortunately, Campbell became interested in botany and did not
write his contemplated chapters of the Philosophy which, presumably,
would have set forth his ideas on elegance, animation, and music in
language.

Richard Whately's theory of elocution reveals six distinguishing char-
acteristics. The first is his refusal to introduce observations concerning
grammar. It is not, he says, exclusively the concern of rhetoric. The
second is his limited treatment of ornament. The only aspects of lan-
guage that have application to argumentative and persuasive works,
he claims, are perspicuity, energy, and elegance. Perspicuity is aided by
avoiding overly-long sentences, uncommon words, prolixity, and overly-
concise statements. Energy is improved by choosing words carefully, by
expressing ideas briefly, and, insofar as the rules of language will per-
mit, by expressing first the ideas that occur first Elegance is assisted by
avoiding "homely and coarse words and phrases," and by using a
"smooth and easy flow of words in respect of the sounds of the sen-
tences." A third feature of Whately's theory of elocution is his emphasis
upon the relativity of perspicuity. Lucidity of thought, he says, cannot
be predicted without reference to the hearers and to the kind and de-
gree of attention they will bestow upon it. A fourth distinctive element
is Whately's insistence that, to achieve elegance of language, the
speaker should "maintain the appearance of expressing himself, not, as
if he wanted to say something,, but as if he had something to say." A
fifth distinguishing mark is his discussion of spurious kinds of writing
and speaking in which "obscurity" rather than perspicuity is to the pur-
pose. And a sixth is his emphasis upon differences between rhetoric and
poetic. Whereas Campbell sees a close relationship between oratory
and poetry, Whately discerns great unlikeness. The poet and the orator,
says Campbell, make use of the same rules of composition and the same

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 97

tropes and figures. Frequently, their aims coincide. Versification makes
poetry only a variety of oratory and not a different form of expression.85
To Whately, the differences stem from primacy of purpose as well as
from primacy of language and form. Thought is primary in rhetoric, but
subordinate in poetry. Elegant language and metre are primary in
poetry, but subordinate in oratory.86

Pronunciation

All of these English theorists emphasize the importance of delivery.
Campbell devotes One full lecture to it. Ward quotes Cicero, Demos-
thenes, and Quintilian in agreeing that "this is the principal part of an
orator's province, from whence he is chiefly to expect success in the art
of persuasion." Blair declares that "nothing is more important" in pub-
lic address than delivery. Whately calls it "a most important branch of
rhetoric." 87

Principles

Although the detail devoted to the subject of pronunciation by these
rhetoricians ranges from Ward's lengthy and minute explanation to
Blair's few paragraphs, all.are in agreement that the delivery of the
speaker ^shpuld be /'natural." They differ, however, concerning the
methocUef teaching" delivery. Ward is neo-classical in his tendency to
formulate rules, suggest models, and recommend imitation. Qgnipbell.,
Blair, and Whately, on the other hand, may be classified as romanticists
who^ confidently trusted the end result of an individual's response to
his own- thought-emotion. Two basic points of view seem to underlie
their instruction. In ^he first place, the speaker should concentrate upon
hi^; subject. This point is given strong emphasis in the Elements of
Rhetoric, and, although Whately claims some degree of originality for
the idea, it is expressed or implied in the theory of each of his predeces-
sors. Se^QstdlyrAe sgeak§i:^Pl4dfeel todepe^ent o£ ral§s ^djismain
confident of tl|§ effectiveness of delivery that springs spontaneously
from earnest attempts to communicate. The "natural manner," says
Whately, is "that whicn one naturally falls into who is really speaking,
in earnest, and with a mind exclusively intent on what he has to say,
avoiding all thoughts of self." It is "the delivery of a man of sense and
taste, speaking earnestly, on a serious subject, and on a solemn occa-
sion." When a speaker is engaged in public discourse, suggests Blair,
"lie ought to be then quite in earnest; wholly occupied with his subject
and his sentiments; leaving nature, and previously formed habits to
prompt and suggest his manner of delivery." 88

98 THE HERITAGE

Whately, possibly because he had been able to observe the effects of
the elocutionary movement, pens not only a carefully meditated argu-
ment for the natural manner but also a castigating refutation of me-
chanical systems of teaching delivery. His observations are written as
though they were the outgrowth of considerable discussion, and so
intent is he upon establishing the soundness of his philosophy that he
repetitiously writes his chapter twice. He argues that systems of analyz-
ing and marking passages are ( 1 ) imperfect in that no variety of marks
could be invented to indicate all the different "tones/' (2) circuitous
in that they attempt to teach the reader to do that which comes nat-
urally, and (3) ineffectual because attention is focused on the voice,
and the voice, therefore, becomes studied and artificial.

Voice and Articulation

The recommendations of these English rhetoricians in regard to voice
and articulation hold up well when compared with modern precepts.
Campbell divides delivery into "grammatical pronunciation" and ^rhe-
torical pronunciation." These, he says, are so perfectly distinct, that
"each may be found in a very eminent degree without the other."
Grammatical pronunciation consists "in articulating, audibly and dis-
tinctly, the letters whether vowels or consonants, assigning to each its
appropriate sound, in giving the several syllables their just quantity,
and in placing the accent, or, as some call it, the syllabic emphasis, in
every word on the proper syllable." Rhetorical pronunciation consists
"in giving such an utterance to the several words in a sentence, as shows
in the mind of the speaker a strong perception, or as it were, feeling of
the truth and justness of the thought conveyed by them, and in placing
the rhetorical emphasis in every sentence, on the proper word, that is,
on the word which, by being pronounced emphatically, gives the great-
est energy and clearness to the expression. Under this head is also com-
prehended gesture." 89

Campbell warns against a forced and unnatural grammatical pro-
nunciation and lists five potential faults: (1) straining the voice
"beyond its natural key," (2) rapidity of rate, (3) a "theatrical and
violent manner," (4) "insipid monotony," and (5) a "sing-song man-
ner." In connection with this he offers four suggestions on the manage-
ment of the voice: (1) avoid beginning on too high a clef, (2) preserve
the same key on which you begin, (3) begin by speaking deliberately
and slowly, (4) engage in frequent practice in reading, speaking, and
repeating before at least one "sensible companion."

Blair approaches the matter somewhat differently and says that the
speaker, in delivery, has two aims: (1) to speak so as to be fully and

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 99

easily understood, and (2) to speak with grace and force. To accom-
plish the first objective, the speaker should (a) "use a due degree of
loudness of voice/' ( b ) use distinct articulation, giving "every sound its
due proportion . . . without slurring, whispering, or suppressing any of
the proper sounds," (c) be moderate in rate, avoiding extremes of pre-
cipitancy and slowness, and (d) use proper pronunciation, forming each
sound according to "polite usage" and giving each word its "proper
accentuation." To accomplish the second objective, the speaker attends
to emphasis, pauses, tones, and gesture.90

Whately tells us that three qualities of delivery fall within the prov-
ince of rhetoric: (1) perspicuity, which makes the meaning fully
understandable to the hearers, (2) energy, which conveys meaning
forcibly, and (3) elegance, which conveys meaning agreeably. How-
ever, he does not follow through and isolate the elements that enter
into these qualities; rather he attempts to establish the general prin-
ciple that "nature" will spontaneously suggest the proper emphases,
tones, pauses, degrees of loudness, degrees of rapidity, and so forth.

Ward treats voice under the headings "quantity" and "quality." As to
quantity of voice, he recommends that the speaker "fill the place where
he speaks," avoid extremes of pitch, avoid monotony and sudden varia-
tions, adapt to the nature of the subject, maintain variety in pace, give
each word and syllable "its just and full sound, both as to time and
accent," and attend to pausing. As to quality of voice, he asks that we
make the best of what nature has bestowed upon us, and, by careful
attention, improve on its strength, clearness, fullness, and smoothness,91

Action

Ward uses the term gesture as the label for "a suitable conformity of
the motions of the countenance, and several parts of the body in speak-
ing, tq the subject matter of the discourse," and divides it into "natural"
and "imitative." Natural action consists of those gestures and motions
that normally accompany our words; imitative action is that which is
used in describing or in personating. He provides rather elaborate
advice concerning management of the head, countenance, eyes, shoul-
ders, arms, hands, chest, and feet92

The other theorists do not follow Ward's lead. Whately refuses to
discuss bodily action. The situation at present, he says, seems to be,
tKaf TEe disgust excited, on the one hand, by awkward and ungraceful
motions, and, on the other, by studied gesticulations, has led to the
general disuse of action altogether; and has induced men to form the
habit ... of keeping themselves quite still, or nearly so, when speak-
ing." 93

100 THE HERITAGE

"gesture" under the head of rhetorical pronuncia-
to say upon the subject.94 Perhaps he felt, as did
Whately, that "it would be inconsistent ... to deliver any precepts for
gesture; because the observance of even the best conceivable pre-
cepts, would, by destroying the natural appearance, be fatal to their
object. . . ." 95

Blair doubts the value of Quintilian's list of rules, and suggests that
"the study of action in public speaking, consists chiefly in guarding
against awkward and disagreeable motions; and in learning to perform
such as are natural to the speaker in the most becoming manner." OG
Whately agrees, and argues that "no care should be taken to use grace-
ful or appropriate action; which, if not perfectly unstudied, will always
be ... intolerable. But if any one spontaneously falls into any gestures
that are unbecoming, care should then be taken to break the habit." 97

Stagefright

Whately devotes considerable space to the problem of stagefright,
and considers it a problem for those who drop the "sheltering veil" of
an artificial mode of delivery and adopt a natural manner. Blair and
Ward touch upon it in short paragraphs, and suggest that it is a prob-
lem peculiarly common to those who are just beginning to speak in
public.

Whately reasons that the cause of this "embarrassed, bashful, nervous
sensation" is the close relationship between audience and speaker. The
speaker knows that every fault in his delivery "makes the stronger im-
pression on each of the hearers, from their mutual sympathy, and their
consciousness of it." Ward claims that the problem is related to the
degree of modesty in the speaker as well as to his ambition to excel.

Both Blair and Whately offer the same advice. The speaker, suggests
Blair, "will find nothing of more use to him, than to study to become
wholly engaged in his subject; to be possessed with a sense of its im-
portance or seriousness; to be concerned much more to persuade than
to please ? 9S

Kinds of Delivery

list three forms of delivery: speaking

is the Better form.
Whatfily writes elaborately concerning the superiority 6f ffie metlTod,
and recommends that the extemporaneous speaker attempt to reach the

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 101

high level of style and arrangement which, generally, characterizes
written discourse."

Ward suggests that speaking from memory provides more opportunity
for control of the voice and for the use of bodily action than does the
method of reading. Campbell recommends that the preacher read from
the pulpit because speaking extempore requires a certain "original and
natural talent/' and because, in speaking memoriter, the voice falls
into a "kind of tune." Whately suggests that, with effort, it is possible
for a person to read as well as he speaks. He discusses three levels
of good reading: correct reading, which attempts to convey the sense
of the material read; impressive reading, which adds to correct reading
"some adaptation of the tones of the voice to the character of the sub-
ject, and of the style"; and fine reading, which "seems to convey, in
addition, a kind of admonition to the hearers respecting the feelings
which the composition ought to excite in them." 10°

English theories have had strong and permanent impact upon Amer-
ican instruction in rhetoric. The English writers to whom we are pri-
marily indebted are John Ward, George Campbell, Hugh Blair, and
Richard Whately. All but Ward were theologians. Fundamentally and
basically, the theories expounded by these writers follow in the classical
tradition. Ward's System is representative of the many English works
on rhetoric that were, with only slight deviation, exclusively classical in
concept. But, of these four, Ward alone looked only behind himself.
Campbell was strongly influenced by Bacon's insistence upon inductive
reasoning from observed facts, and by the empirical psychology of
Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Reid. As a result, his Philosophy initiated a
psychological-epistemological-semantic trend in rhetorical theory that
had tremendous influence upon American thought. Blair added to the
literature of his day still another, yet sound, treatise on genteel criticism.
His Lectures may be described as belles lettristic-critical in trend. They
isolate rhetoric from "logical and ethical disquisitions" and locate it
with studies that "sooth the mind, gratify the fancy, or move the affec-
tions," Invention was the core of Whately's theory; but his philosophy
of delivery was romantic-naturalistic. Consequently his Rhetoric may
be characterized as inventional-naturalistic in trend. It initiated the
rapid development of a rhetoric of argumentation and debate. Priest-
ley's Lectures, mentioned here only because they round out the picture
of trends in English rhetorical theory, may be labelled as associationis-
tic. Without question, these writers bequeathed to modern scholars the
very best rhetorics that had been written since the time of Quintilian.

102 THE HERITAGE

Notes

1. See Warren Guthrie, "The Development of Rhetorical Theory In America,"
Speech Monographs, XIII (1946), 14-22; XIV (1947), 38-54; XV (1948), 61-71;
XVI (1949) ,98-1 13.

2. Ibid., XIII, 16-18; Wilbur Samuel Howell, "Ramus and English Rhetoric:
1574-1681," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXVII (October, 1951), 299-310.

3. For biographical information see Douglas Ehmnger, "Jonn Ward and -His
Rhetoric," SM, XVIII (1951), 1-16.

4 Another English treatise that adhered more or less slavishly to classical
doctrine and is worth mention here is John Lawson's Lectures Concerning Oratory
(London, 1742). See Guthrie, op. tit., XIV, 41-44; H. F. Harding, English Rhetori-
cal Theory, 1750-1800, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1928;
W. F. Sanford, English Theories of Public Address, 1530-1828 (Columbus, Ohio,
1931); Douglas Ehninger, "Dominant Trends in English Rhetorical Thought/'
Southern Speech Journal, XVIII (1953), 3-12; Ray E. Keesey, "John Lawson's
Lectures Concerning Oratory" SM, XX ( 1953), 49-57.

5. A System of Oratory, 2 vols. (London, 1759), p. 19. Cf. Quintilian, Insti-
tutes of Oratory, tr. J. S. Watson (London, 1856), ii. 15, 1-37; Cicero, On The
Character of the Orator, tr. J. S. Watson (London, 1855), i. 31.

6. Ward, System, I, 21. Cf. Cicero, i. 11-15.

7. Cf. Cicero, ii, 29. Quintilian, lii. 5, 1-2.

8. Cf. Quintilian, in. 3, 1.

9. For biographical information, see George Campbell, Lectures on Ecclesiasti-
cal History, ed. George Skene Keith (London, 1800), Vol. I.

10. See Guthrie, op. cit, XV, 63-64.

11. See Harding, op. cit., p. 140; Clarence W. Edney, "Campbell's Lectures on
Pulpit Eloquence," SM, XIX (1952), 1-10.

12. George Campbell, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (Boston, 1823), Preface, p.
6; Alta B. Hall, George Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, Book I, unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1934; Clarence W. Edney, George Camp-
bell's Theory of Public Address, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa, 1946; John
Crawford, The Rhetoric of George Campbell, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, North-
western, 1947.

13. Richard Whately, Elements of Rhetoric (London, 1841), p. 12.

14. George Campbell, Lectures on Systematic Theology and Pulpit Eloquence
(Boston, 1810), p. 167.

15. Henry Home of Kames, Elements of Criticism (Edinburgh, 1762).

16. Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning (London, 1605); Novum
Organum (London, 1620).

17. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (London, 1690),

18. David Hume, A Treatise of Humm Nature (London, 1730-1740).

19. For biographical information see James L. Golden, The Rhetorical Theory
and Practice of Hugh Blair, unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State, 1948; J. Hall,
Account of The Life and Writings of Hugh Blair (London, 1807); the Dictionary
of National Biography; Robert M. Schmitz, Hugh Blair (New York, 1948).

20. Alexander Jamieson's Grammar of Rhetorical and Polite Literature (Lon-
don, 1818) was another English work that followed this trend and was widely used
in American colleges as an introductory text.

21. (Philadelphia, 1844), p. 10.

22. Ibid., pp. 11-15.

23. Ibid., p. 10.

24. Ibid., p. 261.

25. For biographical information see W. J. Fitzpatrick, Memoirs of Richard
Whately (London, 1864); Reverend T. Mozley, Reminiscences, Chiefly of Oriel
College and the Oxford Movement (Boston, 1882); W. Tuckwell, Reminiscences

ENGLISH SOURCES OF RHETORICAL THEORY 103

of Oxford (London, 1907); E. Jane Whately, Life and Correspondence of Richard
Whately, D. D. (London, 1866); the Dictionary of National Biography. For the
chief work on Whatel/s rhetoric, see W. M. Parrish, "Whately and His Rhetoric/*
QJS, XV (1929), 58-79; and by the same author, "Richard Whately's Elements of
Rhetoric, Parts I and II: A Critical Edition," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, 1929.

26. Richard Whately, Elements of Logic (New York, 1864).

27. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 30.

28. Whately's well-known handbook on Christian Evidences appeared in 1837,
and was translated during his lifetime into at least a dozen languages.

29. (Dublin, 1781).

30. Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 10; Campbell, Lectures, p. 179; Ward, System, I,
48-49, Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 16-32. Cf. Elbert W. Harrington, Rhetoric and the
Scientific Method of Inquiry (Boulder, Colorado, 1948).

31. Whately, Rhetoric, Preface, p. x; Campbell, Philosophy, p. 59. Ward, Sys-
tem, I, 31-32. Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 12.

32. Cf. Quintilian, v. 10, 94.

33. Ward, System, I, 44-76.

34. Cf. Quintilian, iii. 6, 66-67.

35. Cf. James H. McBurney, "The Place of the Enthymeme in Rhetorical
Theory/' SM, III (1936), 49-74.

36. Quintilian, v. 10, 11-16.

37. Thomas Reid, Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man ( Edinburgh, 1785 ).

38. Descartes, Locke, and Mill also insisted that intuition (or perception) was
the crux of any attempt to explain the sources of knowledge. Mill declared that
"the truths known by intuition are the original premises from which all others are
inferred." John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic (New York, 1873), p. 4.

39. Cf. Hume, op. cit., p. 332.

40. Campbell, Philosophy, pp. 61-84.

41. Clarence W. Edney, "Campbell's Theory of Logical Truth/' SM, XV
(1948), 19-32.

42. Rhetoric, pp. 7, 36.

43. Ibid, p. 39.

44. Ibid., p. 48.

45. Cf. Orville L. Pence, "The Concept and Function of Logical Proof in the
Rhetorical System of Richard Whately," SM, XX (1953), 23-38.

46. See The Rhetoric of Aristotle, ii. 25, tr. Lane Cooper (New York, 1932),
p. 180.

47. "Something that might, conceivably, be submitted to the senses, and about
which there could be no disagreement among persons who should be present and
to whose senses it should be submitted." Cf., Locke, op. cit., IV. 16, 5.

48. When the conclusion is one which is general in nature or which assigns
causes and which has demanded an exercise of judgment.

49. Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 62-75. Cf. Campbell, Rhetoric, pp. 82-84; Locke,
op. cit., IV. 15, 4. Whately is indebted to Campbell.

50. Whately, Logic, p. 256-258. Cf. Mill, op. cit., p. 225.

51. The only difference between Campbell's theory of experience and that of
Whately in this instance is pomt-of -reference, one epistemological, the other logical.

52. Cf. Aristotle, op. cit., ii. 25, p. 177. Cicero, Rhetorical Invention, i. 42.
Quintilian, iv. 13, 1.

53. Cf. Aristotle, op. cit., ii. 25, p. 177.

54. Whately, Logic, pp. 168-250.

55. Campbell, Philosophy, pp. 146-174.

56. Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 195-197, 207-208; Ward, System, I, 158.

57. Ward, System, I, 156-158; Campbell, Philosophy, p. 107; Blair, Belles
Lettres, p. 385; Whately, Rhetoric, p. 195.

58. Blair, Belles Lettres, pp. 395-362.

104 THE HERITAGE

59. Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 209-230.

60. Campbell, Rhetoric, pp. 111-126.

61. Locke, Essay, II. 21, 5-6.

62. System, I, 140.

63. Campbell, Rhetoric, p. 129; Ward, System, I5 141; Blair, Belles Lett res,
p. 15; Whately, Rhetoric, p. 208.

64. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 208. Cf. Aristotle, op. cit., ii. 1, p. 92.

65. System, I, 142-147.

66. Campbell, Philosophy, pp. 128-129.

67. Ibid., p. 129; Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 246-247.

68. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 232.

69. Ibid., p. 257.

70. Ibid., p. 231; Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 147.

71. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 241.

72. Ibid., pp. 260-262.

73. Campbell, Philosophy, p. 130.

74. Cf. Cicero, ii. 76, 77. See Russell H. Wagner, "The Meaning of Dispositio"
in Studies in Speech and Drama (Ithaca, N. Y., 1944), pp. 285-294; Douglas
Ehninger, Selected Theories of Inv&ntio in English Rhetoric, unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Ohio State, 1949.

75. Campbell, Philosophij, pp. 100-124.

76. Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 239.

77. Ward, System, pp. 110-424.

78. Cf, Cicero, iii, 52.

79. Blair, Belles Lettres, pp. 101-205.

80. Cf. Bacon, op. cit., pp. 19-32; Hobbes, Leviathan, I. 4, 25; R. I, Aaron,
John Locke (London, 1937), pp. 95-208; Hume, op. cit., p. 320. See Alfred Kor-
zybski, Science and Sanity (Lancaster, Pa., 1948).

81. Campbell, Lectures, pp. 181-200.

82. Cf. Quintilian, ix, 3, 2.

83. Ibid., viii, 2, 1.

84. Campbell, Philosophy, pp. 175-475.

85. Ibid., p. 18.

86. Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 263-379.

87. Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 365; Whately, Rhetoric, p. 381; Ward, System, I,
314-316; Campbell, Lectures, pp. 196-211.

88. Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 376; Whately, Rhetoric, pp. 390, 401, 410-421;
Campbell, Lectures, p. 200; Ward, Si/stem, I, 319, 382-383.

89. Campbell, Lectures, p. 197.

90. Blair, Belles Lettres, pp. 366-368.

91. Ward, System, I, 329-343,

92. Ibid., I, 344-359.

93. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 448.

94. Campbell, Lectures, p. 198.

95. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 451.

96. Blair, Lectures, p. 375.

97. Whately, Rhetoric, p. 450.

98. Ibid., pp. 420-430; Blair, Belles Lettres, p. 376.

99. Ward, System, I, 381-384; Campbell, Lectures, pp. 205-208; Whately,
Rhetoric, pp. 385-447.

100. Ward, System, I, 382; Campbell, Lectures, p. 208; Whately, Rhetoric,
pp. 385, 404-406.

i) English Sources of American Elocution

FREDERICK W. HABERMAN

As a modern study elocution originated in England. In its first half
century, from 1750 to 1800, it Was accepted in America as readily as in
its native land, and in the next century cultivated even more assidu-
ously. The Americans, in the early stages of the movement's history,
republished British authors, copied them with or without acknowledge-
ment, modified and adapted their teachings to meet their situations.
In the later stages, they folded in a new French influence. Meanwhile,
they were creating a movement in America which possessed attributes
of independence as well as adaptation.

In other essays in this volume may be found discussions of the de-
velopment of elocution in America. We shall here be concerned with
the phenomenon of elocution in England: with the genesis of the move-
ment; with the characteristics of the movement— its scope, methodology,
divisions, and terminology; with the authors and books which were the
substance of the elocutionary ideas; and with the host of other elocu-
tionary books which followed in the train of the movement.

The Genesis of the Elocutionary Movement

Elocution concentrated on man speaking. It emerged from the eight-
eentiTcgflttt^^ investigafcioa^of-^ie rhetorical canon of delivery.

Delivery, to be sure, had been studied in all ages and in all nations of
the western world prior to 1750, but the elocutionary movement was
an examination of delivery so specialized in nature and content as to
differ in kind from former studies.1 This phenomenon was the result of
several eighteenth-century forces working in concatenation.

Just as the seventeenth century was a century of criticism of style, so
the eighteenth was one of criticism of delivery. Inevitably, the criticism
feir^n^tTGEaviTy on* tr^teptes^ Occupants of the English pulpit. Rich-
ard Steele 2 in the pages of the Spectator wrote disparagingly of their
"rakish, negligent air" and their habit of "lolling on their books/' Jon-

105

106 THE HERITAGE

athan Swift, acutely aware of the layman's grumbling about the dull-
ness of church services, laid the blame on whomever he was talking to.
To his congregation, Swift said that it was his parishioners' gluttony and
not the preacher's dullness which caused them to go to sleep; besides
that, it was absurd to expect superb oratory from all preachers on all
occasions.3 To the clergy, however, he observed that the reading of
sermons, especially with the head "held down from the beginning to
the end, within an inch of the cushion" must be roundly condemned,4
A satirical poem by Dr. Byram makes the same point:

For, what's a sermon, good, or bad,
If a man reads it like a lad?
To hear some people, when they preach,
How they lun o'er all parts of speech,
And neither raise a word, nor sink;
Our learned bishops, one would think,
Had taken school-boys from the rod,
To make ambassadors of God,5

The faults of delivery most commonly noted by the critics of the
eighteenth century were frigidity, inertness, colorlessness, vulgarity,
absent-minded reading. Lord Chesterfield, that untiring expositor of
the worldly education of the man of position, limned the ideal to be
achieved: "a most genteel figure, a graceful noble air, an harmonious
voice, an elegancy of style, and a strength of emphasis/' 6

The elocutionary movement was also a direct outgrowth of the
seventeenth- and eighteenth-century interest in the English language.
In bringing the language to full stature in the seventeenth century, the
English had discovered, somewhat to their surprise, that they could
legitimately be proud of their native tongue. Along with their pride
ran a concurrent sentiment: to make the language an even more noble
instrument by standardizing and improving it in all its aspects, both
written and spoken.

Many of those who dealt professionally with language advocated the
establishment of an English Academy which would legislate on the
purity and beauty of the tongue, In 1660 R. H., in 1679 Dryden, in 1697
Defoe, in 1712 Swift supported the founding of a society which would
"polish and refine the English tongue." r

The Academy was not founded until 1901, but these pleas in support
of one resulted in the making of dictionaries to increase knowledge
about the individual words that make up the language and in the mak-
ing of grammars to improve the handling of words in collocation. Con-
cern about improvement of the written aspects of the language was
matched by correlative concern over the oral aspects. John Evelyn, for

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 107

example, chairman of a committee on the improvement of the English
tongue appointed by the Royal Society in 1664, proposed:

That there might be invented some new periods and accents, besides such
as our grammarians and critics use, to assist, inspirit, and modifie the pronun-
^iation of sentences, and to stand as markes before hand how the voyce and
^fone is to be governed, as in reciting of playes, reading of verses, etc., for the
varying the tone of the voyce and affections, etc.8

The lexicographers of the eighteenth century undertook the invention
of ways to implement the first idea implied in Evelyn's proposal: the
correct phonation of words in isolation. Bailey in 1731, Kenrick in 1773,
and Ash in 1775 adopted devices of syllabification, accent and stress
marks.9 At this point, the elocutionists turned to lexicography, Thomas
Sheridan's dictionary of 1780 was the most complete guide to pronun-
ciation until Walker's dictionary appeared eleven years later.10

The study of phonation in individual words led naturally to investi-
gation of the second idea implied in Evelyn's proposal: the devising of
ways to indicate inflection, pause, force, and rate in the delivery of
words in connected discourse. Such investigation resulted in the publi-
cation of treatises on voice management, complete with symbolic sys-
tems making it theoretically possible to render the language with grace
and correctness. These treatises on voice management were manuals
of elocution.

Another reason for the interest in delivery and for the development
of the art of elocution was the perception"that power in oral presenta-
tion was an instrument of public persuasion. Buffon, .well known in
England, said in his famous discourse of 1753 that the requisites for
arousing the crowd are a "vehement and affecting tone, expressive and
frequent gestures, rapid and ringing words." 1:L Charles Palmer, Deputy-
Sergeant to the House of Commons, wrote as one of his maxims that
delivery "is the very life and soul of eloquence. . . . The art of oratory
is never so great and potent by the things that are said, as by the manner
of saying them." 12

Not only in parliament but also in the pulpit was oral presentation
thought to have a persuasive effect. Competence retained the congrega-
tions; incompetence lost them.

The parliamentary audience is a specialized one; so, in some senses,
is the religious audience. But the elocutionists were aware also of the
emerging mass audience in the eighteenth century, created by the im-
mense diffusion of knowledge. Lecky says that the effect of this diffu-
sion of knowledge was such that "all important controversies became
in their style and method more popular." 13 Popularization meant that
ideas addressed to this mass audience, eager for knowledge and leaders,

108 THE HERITAGE

should be invested with more immediacy, more vividness, more sim-
plicity, and more clarity not only in composition, but also in delivery.

The general interest in delivery so noticeable after 1750 is traceable
in part to the renewed popularity of the theatre, to the development of
a new style of stage delivery that revealed the potentialities of the lan-
guage, to the personal influence of the great actor David Garrick, to
the pedagogy of the two actors, Sheridan and Walker, who adapted
stage delivery to certain forms of social discourse, and to the recogni-
tion that the training of a young speaker might well include emulation
of the best actors and practical exercise in dramatic presentation.14

Finally, the elocutionary movement arose as a response to the de-
mands of the age for training and educating its rising generation. Good
speakers were in demand; society lavished extensive favors upon those
who spoke well. Burgh, headmaster of a boys' school, spoke of the need
for a "competent address and readiness" in "parliament, at the bar, in
the pulpit, at meetings of merchants in committees for managing pub-
lic affairs." 15 Sheridan remarks that "promotion, or honour to individ-
uals, is sure to attend even a moderate share of merit" in good public
reading or speaking.16 William Enfield said that "there are few persons
who do not daily experience the advantages" of a "just and graceful
elocution." 17

Practical need for expertness in delivery, as presented by complain-
ing auditors or felt by ambitious speakers; philological and linguistic
investigations into pronunciation and inflectional patterns; recognition
of the persuasive effect of pleasing delivery; the emergence of a new
convention of dramatic presentation that invested delivery of spoken
language with a new liveliness; the acknowledgment of competence in
speaking as a part of general education— all these forces acting together
in the eighteenth century inspired the most intensive study of delivery
ever undertaken.

Characteristics of the Elocutionary Movement

Sheridan gave elocution its broadest definition, one that compre-
hended the work of the elocutionists for over a hundred years:

A just delivery [Sheridan says] consists in a distinct articulation of words,
pronounced in proper tones, suitably varied to the sense, and the emotions of
the mind; with due observation of accent; of emphasis, in its several grada-
tions; of rests or pauses of the voice, in proper place and well measured de-
grees of time; and the whole accompanied with expressive looks, and signifi-
cant gesture.18

This "just delivery" fitted either the rhetorical situation or the inter-
pretational situation. The elocutionists, it is true, concentrated in their

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 109

pedagogical techniques more upon the practice of reading aloud, than
on the delivery of original speeches. Rice in 1765 and Cockin in
1775, for instance, were interested solely in the art of reading aloud.19
There is implicit, however, in the writings of many elocutionists, the
retention of a relationship between training in reading aloud and the
delivery of an extemporaneous speech at the bar or from the well of a
legislative assembly. Mason says that his book on elocution is "intended
chiefly for the assistance of those who instruct others in the art of
reading. And of those who are often called to speak in publick." 20
Walker says that "as reading is a correct and beautiful picture of
speaking; speaking, it is presumed cannot be more successfully taught,
than by referring us to such rules as instruct us in the art of reading," 21
Sheridan concurs. He points out that the aim of public speaking is persua-
sion, that persuasion cannot be accomplished without the appearance
of earnestness, that earnestness of delivery can best be learned through
elocution. Whether the goal of the elocutionists was the creation of the
graceful reader or the persuasive speaker or both, the technique was
that of supplying principles and rules and systems of notation in con-
junction with a skillful teacher for the better mastery of the printed

PaSe-

The printed page, the voice, language, and the body as used in oral
presentation supplied the material upon which the movement brought
philosophy, rules, principles, notation, and a master's insight to bear.
In devising ways to analyze these materials the elocutionists used the
precepts of ancient rhetoric and the practices of the stage. But a new
force, operating over a period of some decades, eventually gave the
movement its distinctive turn.

That force was science. It is the elocutionists' primary claim to fame
in rhetorical history that they applied the tenets of science to the
physiological phenomena of spoken discourse, making great contribu-
tions to human knowledge in that process.

The spirit of the elocutionary movement, like that of science, was
one of independence, of originality, of a break with tradition.

The methodology of the elocutionary movement, like that of science,
was a combination of observing and recording. Just as the astronomer
observed the movements of the planets and recorded them in special
symbols, so the elocutionists observed certain phenomena of voice,
body, and language, and recorded them in systems of notation. The
elocutionists who contributed most to the movement are those whose
work is characterized by exhaustive analysis based on observation, by
systematic organization, and by the invention of systems of symbolic
representation.

The philosophy of the elocutionary movement, like that of the scien-

HO THE HERITAGE

tific-rationalistic creed., was a conception of man controlled by natural
Jaw. The elocutionists believed that the nature of man was governed by
the same law and order which seventeenth-century science had dis-
covered in the nature of the universe. They could claim that their rules
and principles and systems represented the order that is found in
nature; they were "nature still, but nature methodized." The phrase
"follow nature" meant in general that the rational order found in the
universe should be reproduced in books; and it meant in the field of
delivery that the laws of elocution must approximate as closely as pos-
sible the laws of life.22

The elocutionists of the eighteenth century generally referred to their
subject as an art. Rarely did they use the word science or the word
scientific. But as the century neared its completion, the subsidiary sub-
jects investigated became more and more "scientific" in the sense that
elocution tended to be concerned with speech correction, with the
anatomy of vocal physiology, and with the physics of sound production.
Many writers of the nineteenth century-Thelwall, Rush, Bell, Plumptre,
for example— looked upon elocution as a science.23

Scientific or artistic, the maxims and theoretical precepts which
teacher and pupil were expected to master were diverse. For con-
venience in examination we may profitably group the contributions of
the elocutionists into four divisions.

The division of bodily action included all the signs of visual com-
munication, such as modifications of facial expression, manner and
attitude, movement of arms and legs. The qualities of gesture or of
bodily action most frequently sought were those of grace and force.
Though the elocutionists set up no hard and fast dichotomy of method
for the attaining of these two qualities, it seems apparent that there
were two levels of training in their systems. The one was that of simple
practice in the use of bodily actions, such as the sweep of the arm, the
pointing of the finger, the clasping of the hands. This was the gesture
of technical training. The other was that of the complex action required
to communicate the passions. This was the gesture of emotional expres-
sion. The elocutionists implied that the appropriate gesture of emotional
expression gave force to delivery; and they inferred that studious atten-
tion to the technique of controlling bodily action lent it grace. To
accompany their descriptive and sometimes prescriptive accounts of
bodily actions, the elocutionists eventually invented symbols to repre-
sent them.

The division of vpicejmaageramt j^mj^

ful manipulation *of EnglislL8sgund$. The elocutionists wished to make
tEe voice into a resilient instrument, capable of reading with variety
and effectiveness. Vocal flexibility, buoyancy, responsiveness to mean-

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 111

ing and innuendo, control— such were the qualities which the elocu-
tionists sought. This division included definition and expert discussion
of the elements of voice management, among them accent, emphasis,
pause, pitch, force, rhythm, tone; it included the formulation of bodies
of principles in some instances, of bodies of rules in others, and the
development of rational systems, complete with notation, for the proper
handling of the voice.

The division of pronunciation took account of the actual phonation of
words. In trying to ameliorate dialectal variations from the "standard"
pronunciation, to excise vulgar pronunciations, and to remedy .mistaken
pronunciations, the elocutionists, perforce, became lexicographers. Both
Walker and Sheridan, at an early date in the movement, began to work
on methods for standardizing pronunciation and for devising a nota-
tion by which the correct pronunciation would be immediately appar-
ent. In other words, they were looking for ways to systematize pronun-
ciation just as they had systematized the management of the voice and
the actions of the body. Sheridan produced a dictionary in 1780 making
use of a device new to lexicography: the respelling of the word to be
pronounced into a loose phonetic script. Walker, in his dictionary of
1791, says of his own method:

[It] divides the words into syllables, and marks the sounds of the vowels
like Dr. Kenrick, spells the words as they are pronounced like Mr. Sheridan,
and directs the inspector to the rule by the word like Mr. Nares; but, where
words are subject to different pronunciations . . . produces authorities for one
side and the other, and points out the pronunciation which is preferable.24

In the division of vocal production the elocutionists attended to the
problem of the actual formation of the sounds of speech. Their insist-
ence that oral delivery be both pleasurable and persuasive presupposed
that the pupil was capable of producing speech sounds— if not pleasant
sounds, at least recognizable ones. A pupil who lisped or stammered
could not become a polished speaker so long as he retained his defective
utterance. Of all the divisions of elocution, this one had been the least
cultivated by any predecessors of the elocutionists. Little was known
about the anatomy of the speech mechanism, much less about the
nature of speech sounds, and virtually nothing about speech therapy.
In this division, the elocutionists addressed themselves to three prob-
lems: the identification of English sounds, the manner in which those
sounds were produced, and the impediments which might interfere
with the production of those sounds.

The elocutionists employed terms which had long been common-
place in rhetorical history, but they used them with the new significa-
tion that emerged during the eighteenth century. The years 1625-1725

112 THE HERITAGE

form the great divide between two periods in which the technical defi-
nitions of the terms style., elocution, and pronunciation differed signifi-
cantly. Whereas pronunciation once embraced the whole field of deliv-
ery, it later signified the correct phonation of words in isolation.
Elocution, which once meant the manner of artistic composition, be-
came identified with the manner of artistic delivery. Style, once a
subsidiary synonym for elocution, later comprehended the whole canon
of the choice and arrangement of words.

Certain characteristics of the intermediate century, 1625-1725, explain
these changes in interpretation. These years were notable for the reac-
tion from the excesses of the rhetoric of exornation with which elocu-
tion, especially, was intimately identified; for the spreading influence
of the scientific method; and for the development of linguistic scholar-
ship. These forces fused into a destructive energy that drove the theories
and practices of the rhetoric of exornation, together with its specialized
terminology, into oblivion; but at the same time, they generated a con-
structive impulse that led to the formulation of a new set of theories
and practices to take the place of the old.

The criticism of exornation was sharp. In 1643, Howell called it "the
disease of our time"; Wilkins, Barrow, South, Arderne, Eachard, Glanvil,
and others condemned "the hard words, abstruse and mysterious
notions, the affected use of scraps of Greek and Latin, pretty cadences,
fantastic phrases, and rhetorical figures of all kinds." 25 These attacks
doomed exornation; and elocution, a word frequently used as title for
this conception of rhetoric, shared the obloquy along with the subject
matter. The reaction from exornation, plus the impetus of the scientific
method, led to a re-examination of the laws of the language and the
principles and purposes of prose. In the course of this re-examination
pronunciation, style, and elocution obtained their new meaning and
status. Let us see briefly how these new meanings came about.

Linguistic scholars strove to solidify, purify, and standardize the
language. In that process, it became important to discover the correct
phonation for words and to employ a term that would indicate this
special province of linguistic study. The term employed, of course, was
pronunciation. The term was satisfactory in many ways: it had etymo-
logical claim to the required meaning; it had always possessed, in Eng-
lish rhetorical theory, a secondary definition equivalent to the new
requirement; and it was willingly given this primary meaning by the
new writers who were interested in oral presentation.

The scientific and scholarly impulses that produced these linguistic
investigations, produced also a revolutionary change in the conception
:>f what constituted good prose, The "vicious Abundance of Phrase/7

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 113

condemned by the Royal Society, gave way to the slide rule and geo-
metrical unity.26 Prose became "functional"; utility supplanted artifice.
In analyzing the new prose, literary critics shifted their attention from
the speaker to the writer, partly because written prose lent itself to
more scientific scrutiny, and partly because these scholars were more
interested in the fine art of literature than in the useful art of oratory.
Having given up the term elocution, the critics needed a new term.
Style was at hand. It served admirably because of its relative etymolog-
ical purity, its straightforward, uncontaminated history, its intimate
connection with writing, and its tenuous relation to oratory.

The new investigators of oral presentation also needed a term. Four
were at hand. Pronunciation, the traditional term, would no longer
suffice because it had been given a restricted meaning, one which the
new group could use very nicely. Another term was action. Derived
from actio and possessing some of the sanction of classical rhetoric,
especially Cicero's,27 the term was, however, too limited in scope. For
action referred specifically to overt physical motion and tended to ex-
clude voice management. A third term was the modern word delivery.
But it was too modern. Adapted from the French dSlivrer, the primary
signification of the word in England ( as in its native land it is still the
main signification) was "to set free" whether by spear, by habeas corpus,
or by midwife. The term later achieved currency in the language of law,
of sport, of physical deportment, and by 1806, in the language of rheto-
ric, although there are scattered examples of its use in this sense before
this date. The fourth term, elocution, seemed satisfactory. It was etymo-
logically pure. The sense of oral presentation of expression was, in fact,
more closely related to the etymology of the word than was the sense
of style or manner or composition. It was a word traditionally connected
with rhetoric. It was a close relative of the word eloquence. And on the
principle that respectability is determined by the company one keeps,
it could shake off the disrepute of exornation when associated with the
virtue of the new oral presentation.

Authors and Books

The elocutionary movement may best be understood by an examina-
tion of tfie boots which were produced in its name. There were hun-
dreds published. Some of them, those that contained the substance of
the elocutionary ideas, established the subject. These books were origi-
nating accounts or investig^^ such as those by Mason,
Burghy Skeridan, Walker, Austnvand Bell Another category was that
of the manual designed for use in the professions, such as the manual

114 THE HERITAGE

o£ clerical elocution. A third was that of books for school and home
use: the reasoned textbooks, the volumes containing text and illustra-
tive anthology, and the books of elegant extracts.

Of the originating accounts, John Mason's An Essay on Elocution, or
Pronunciation (1748) is the first book to include the word elocution in
its title.28 This short work deals with "the right Management of the
Voice in reading or speaking." 29 The author finds a difference between
the two. Reading, he says, must "express the full Sense and Spirit of
your Author" and speaking must be "suitable to the Nature and Impor-
tance of the Sentiments we deliver." 30 His advice is simultaneously
applicable to both.

Section I deals with a bad pronunciation and how to avoid it; Sec-
tion II with a good pronunciation and how to attain it. Mason con-
stantly recurs to the philosophy epitomized in a statement from Burnet's
Pastoral Care which he quotes with approval:

He that is inwardly persuaded of the Truth of what he says, and that hath
a Concern about it in his Mind, will pronounce with a natural Vehemence
that is far more lovely than all the Strains that Art can lead to. . . .31

Although he knows that the best advice is to "make the Ideas seem to
come from the Heart," he cannot avoid the prescriptive rules which
became a commonplace in the elocutionary movement; for example, "A
Comma stops the Voice while we may privately count one, a Semi-colon
two; a Colon three: and a Period four." 32

James Burgh, the eminent headmaster of an academy at Stoke New-
ington which he founded in 1747, was a successful writer on political
philosophy whose only book on oratory was The Art of Speaking
(1762).33

Part I of this book is an essay "in which are given Rules for expressing
properly the principal Passions and Humors, which occur in Reading,
or Public Speaking." 34 Part II is an anthology of readings, with glosses
referring to the passions defined in the essay.

The essay contains directions to students on the vocal management of
certain types of sentences and certain types of material, an exposition
of physical demeanor in depicting seventy-six different "humors or
passions," 35 and some vigorously penned general observations on ora-
tory. The most striking part of the book is the section in which Burgh
shows how the principal emotions are expressed by attitudes, looks,
gestures, and language. The opening lines of his description of despair
are typical of the vehemence and intensity his analyses call for:

Despair . . . bends the eyebrows downward; clouds the forehead; rolls the
eyes around frightfully; opens the mouth toward the ears; bites the lips; widens
the nostrils; gnashes with the teeth, like a fierce wild beast.36

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 115

The idea held by Burgh that "nature has given to every emotion of
the mind its proper outward expression/' 37 and the correlative idea
that various physical features, such as the eye, are capable of projecting
this expression, while not new in rhetorical history, were eagerly made
a part of the elocutionary movement. Burgh's conception and intensive
analysis of these ideas were given circulation in at least seven British
editions and eight American reprintings of his work. He was read by
Sheridan, paraphrased by Walker, anthologized by Scott, pirated by an
American publisher,38 quoted by Austin, and recalled in one way or
another by elocutionists for over a century.

In 1756 at the age of thirty-seven, after his career as actor and stage
manager had ended in failure, Thomas Sheridan found a new vocation
as teacher, lecturer, and author in elocution. Aside from the Works of
Swift with Life (1784),39 Sheridan's publications deal with three sub-
jects, education, pronunciation, and elocution, though these three may
be considered as facets of his one main interest, speech. The central
proposition of his three works on education is that oratory, properly
taught (by Mr. Sheridan, of course), will eliminate the disorders in
England.40 Sheridan's two works on pronunciation, the Dictionary
(1780) and the Grammar (1780),41 fulfilled a linguistic need, advanced
the theory of phonetics, and fixed pronunciation as one of the divisions
of elocution.

His three works dealing more specifically with reading and speaking
are published lectures. In A Discourse being Introductory to a Course
of Lectures on Elocution and the English Language., delivered at Ox-
ford in 1759,42 Sheridan made a plea for the study of spoken language,
for the employment of properly qualified masters of elocution in a
revised educational system, and for the encouragement of research in
the principles and rules of elocution. Sheridan's most important work
is Lectures on Elocution published in 1762.43 In this series of seven
lectures, he provided the working definition of elocution, established
his philosophy, and discussed articulation, pronunciation, accent, em-
phasis, tones or notes of the speaking voice, pauses or stops, key or
pitch, management of the voice, and gesture. Lectures on the Art of
Reading (1775)44 repeats much of the doctrine published thirteen
years earlier, but is notable for its inclusion of his simple symbolic code,
and of his phonetic analysis of speech sounds.

Sheridan's ideal delivery was characterized by grace, sincerity, and
naturalness. When he began his work, he leaned heavily on the teach-
ings of Cicero and Quintilian and on the application to the lectern of
his experience with the British stage. As accretions were made to the
methodology of elocution, he adopted certain new techniques, among
them a code of his own invention, symbolizing emphases, pauses of

116 THE HERITAGE

varying duration, rapidity, long and short syllables. Sheridan was the
movement's greatest early figure. He gave definition and categories to
the study; he conducted a vigorous propaganda for its acceptance,
reaching large audiences through his lectures and his books; and he
practiced brilliantly his own art.

Joshua Steele was a prosodist, a musical theorist, a business man, a
reformer, and, by accident, an elocutionist because he wrote a book
which greatly influenced the course of the movement.45 Prosodia Ra-
tiondis (1775 and 1779 )46 is a series of tracts, a record of the cor-
respondence between Lord Monboddo and Steele, both of whom were
interested in the phenomena of language and speech. Steele convinced
Monboddo that speech has melody and rhythm. He showed that this
melody was a kind of tune or pitch pattern inherent in speech; that this
rhythm was a recurrence of measured quantity which depends upon
the nature of language and upon an inner understanding of context
externalized by the outward manifestation of voice. To demonstrate his
theses, he analyzed spoken speech according to musical principles,
showing how speech moved up and down the musical scale by slides,
the intervals between syllables being almost infinitesimal. By contrast
the intervals between notes on a musical staff were easily distinguish-
able. Since speech melody could not be precisely rendered by literal
musical symbolization, Steele invented a new notation for speech con-
sisting of curved lines or slides. Having taken the initial step in the
notation of voice management, he went on to design symbols for other
factors of voice, including a set of phonetic characters which seem
remarkable for his time.

With this system, Steele hoped that one might sight-read a discourse
as he might a score of music and that one might preserve for posterity
the performances of superb actors and orators. He illustrated his hopes
with a transcription of a soliloquy as delivered by David Garrick, in
which he used the musical staff, the clef, the time signature, and indi-
cators for rate, pause, pitch, force, and stress. But in these aspirations
he was to fail where later the phonograph, the tape recorder, and the
cinema were to succeed.

Steele influenced the prosodists, among them Odell, Roe, Chapman,
and Coventry Patmore,47 as well as the elocutionists. Walker borrowed
heavily from him (and with virtually no acknowledgment); Thelwall
as heavily (but with acknowledgment); Austin, Smart, Barber, Rush,
Comstock, Murdock— elocutionists on both sides of the Atlantic em-
ployed in one way or another his new analyses of the phonetic, dynamic,
and prosodic components of speech.

John Walker, like Thomas Sheridan, was thirty-seven years old when
he quit the stage and turned to teaching, lecturing, and writing on elo-

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 117

cution to earn a livelihood. His life offers astonishing parallels to Sheri-
dan's. Both of them were actors, theatre managers, educators, lecturers,
writers, and lexicographers. But they differed in mental constitution.
Sheridan was an observer, Walker a lawgiver; Sheridan formulated
generalizations, Walker established a system; Sheridan was more the
pleader who sought a revival of oratorical training, Walker more the
pedagogue who decided the methods to be used in that training.

Walker published many works on pronunciation, elocution, and com-
position. In matters of pronunciation, he became the eighteenth-century
embodiment of an English Academy. The principal work of his life,
A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Lan-
guage (1791),48 has been called "the statute book of English ortho-
epy." 49 His school manuals on grammar and composition were pot-
boilers written late in life after he had earned widespread fame as a
lexicographer and elocutionist.

Walker published six books on elocution.50 The Exercises -for Im-
provement in Elocution (1777), dedicated to Garrick, is a collection of
readings. The Elements of Elocution ( 1781 ) , his most important rhetor-
ical work, is a systematic presentation of a theory of elocution. Hints
for Improvement in the Art of "Reading (1783), is a brief summary of
the Elements. A Rhetorical Grammar (1785) unites the old canons of
rhetoric with the new ones of elocution. Melody of Speaking Delineated
(1787) explains a method of teaching elocution by means of signs
adapted from musical notation. The Academic Speaker ( 1789) is a book
of extracts for declamatory practice, introduced by two essays on ges-
ture and acting.

The basic idea in Walker's Elements of Elocution is that the reader
obtains harmony of sound and achieves fidelity to the author's purpose
by applying the inflections found in nature to the various grammatical
forms utilized by the author. The sense, emphasis, suspension, com-
pleteness, force, and pitch contained in grammatical forms are released
in spoken discourse through employment of the four inflections— rising,
falling, and two circumflex inflections. Walker's exhaustive analysis of
the interplay of inflection and grammatical form resulted in an elabo-
rate system of rules governing the elements of vocal technique.

His claim that he discovered the inflection is not to be credited too
seriously, for Steele wrote about upward and downward slides six years
before Walker published Elements.5* But his application of the theory
of slides to grammatical forms is undoubtedly original. Walker pro-
foundly influenced the elocutionary movement.

In 1806, the Reverend Gilbert Austin published Chironomia; or a
Treatise on Rhetorical Delivery, a quarto volume of 600 pages, hand-
somely bound and printed, and available at £2.2s.52 Of his seven other

118 THE HERITAGE

publications, one is a sermon, and six are on scientific and mechanical
subjects such as barometers, carbonic acid gas, and condensers.

In Chironomia, Austin sought to give to the public some rules and
precepts by which the national oratory might be improved, to compile
a virtual anthology of quotations from the most renowned ancient and
modern rhetoricians on the subject of delivery, to provide a scientifically
exhaustive analysis of gesture, and to popularize a set of agglutinative
symbols by which delivery might be recorded with brevity and preci-
sion.

When he examined the possible positions of the arms in gesture,
Austin sloughed off tradition, eliminated the context of meaning in
speaking, and observed only what positions the arms were capable of
taking. His examination was physiological in nature; his method one of
abstract spatial analysis. To obtain a pattern for the notation of ann
positions, he imagined the speaker inside a sphere. Every point at
intervals of 45° on this sphere had a symbol. For example, the right
arm can take five positions when operating laterally from the body: Z
is overhead, h is horizontal, R is straight down, d is midway between
horizontal and down, e is midway between horizontal and overhead.
Thus Austin could denote on a line of poetry, say, directions for arm
positions in much the same way that Beethoven could place marks on
a piece of paper for a pianist to follow.

In addition to the "scientific" method just described, Austin used other
methods when describing gesture. For positions of the hands, he used
the method of classification by categories; for gestures of head and eyes,
the method of arbitrary selection; and for complicated action to express
complex emotional states, the method of conventional designation.

Chironomia had only one British and no American edition, but it
exerted an enormous influence upon elocutionists. In England, A. M.
Hartley called it "incomparably the ablest treatise on delivery in gen-
eral, that has yet appeared in our language/' 53 In America, a host of
writers, among them, Caldwell, Bronson, Bacon, Fulton and Trueblood,
and as late as 1916, Joseph A. Mosher, were indebted to this extraordi-
nary book.54

Alexander Melville Bell taught in Newfoundland, Edinburgh, Lon-
don, Queens College in Canada, Lowell Institute in Boston. Acclaimed
wherever he went, he seems to have been the international dean of the
movement.55

In his forty-nine publications,56 Bell touched almost every part of
the art and science of elocution, but he made his most original and most
enduring contribution to the subject in the division of vocal produc-
tion.57 In this area, he came close to realizing the hundred-year-old
dream of the elocutionists— that of discovering the physiological means

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 119

by which each speech sound is produced, of classifying those sounds
scientifically, and of inventing a notation that would include a symbol
for every sound. His task was to find a rational basis upon which to
establish a symbolic system. Previous investigators had begun with
sounds and then had tried to describe the physiological positions of the
articulative organs when producing them. What Bell did was to begin
with physiological positions of the organs and then determine what
sounds he could make. Then, by modifying in a systematic way each of
the articulators in turn, he obtained different sounds which formed a
concatenated progression. He could thus account for any sound made
by the human voice, whether an orthodox sound of a national language,
or one of sneezing, snoring, grunting, or spitting. He discharged the
second half of his task by inventing symbols which "depicted" the
actions of the organs forming the sound, thus earning their title of
"Visible Speech." Although visible speech had faults, its virtues were
many, and its influence widespread.58 It became the basis of Henry
Sweet's Broad Romic which in turn became the basis of the IP A, and it
earned Bell a line in George Bernard Shaw's preface to Pygmalion.

Elocution Manuals

The major books which we have so far examined established the basic
ideas of elocution. Some of them gave definition and scope to the sub-
ject; others were investigative treatises, records of research that pushed
outward the bounds of the subject and made contributions to human
knowledge. Many of these books were used in the classroom, but only,
of course, for mature or advanced students. So, along with the complete
accounts of the subject and the detailed surveys of its divisions, an-
other type of book appeared as a part of the movement— the manual of
elocution.

There were, in general, two categories of manuals, those intended for
practitioners of the professions, and those intended for school and nome
use, /,

Most numerous of the professional manuals were those written for
tlajM^ergy. First to provide the application of the new theory of elocu-
tion to the various arts of the church service was Anselm Bayly in two
books, A Practical Treatise on Singing and Playing (1771)59 and The
Alliance of Musick, Poetry, and Oratory (1789).60 John Wesley's little
book of a dozen pages, costing one penny, summarized much of Mason's
advice and exemplified the author's profound respect for brevity and
economy.61 James Wright's The Philosophy of Elocution (1818),62
contains a long elucidation of the office of the minister, 200 pages of
voice management (the principles being paraphrased from Sheridan

120 THE HERITAGE

and the system of notation adapted from Walker), and 175 pages of
liturgies of the church painstakingly marked for delivery. The Rev-
erend John Henry Hewlett's Instructions in Reading the Liturgy of the
United Church of England and Ireland ( 1826 ) 6S analyzes the pitfalls of
church oratory, provides sixty pages of advice on voice management,
interprets and marks fifty liturgical pieces, using a notational system
of commas, dashes, accents, hyphens, capitals, asterisks, circles, and
superior numbers referring back to rules.

An unusual book on elocution for the clergy was Garrick's Mode of
Reading the Liturgy of the Church of England (1840) by Richard
Cull64 Cull's opening essay on the analogy between music and speech
is written in the tradition of Joshua Steele. The rest of the book is a
re-editing of material which had previously been published.65 The gen-
eral method used for explaining Garrick's technique is to quote a line of
the service, and then to comment on the manner in which Garrick
delivered it, or vice versa. For example:

When speaking the three following words, Mr. Garrick recommended a
look, expressive of the utmost suitable gravity, to be cast slowly around the
congregation, the voice rather low, and denoting, together with the whole
manner, that solemn and reverential respect which is due to the place of pub-
lic worship.

Dearly beloved brethren.
Here make a pause much longer than the comma 6G

The main objectives of the authors of manuals of clerical elocution
were to provide instruction in the use of voice and body and to help in
the interpretation of the various liturgies. The study of elocution may
have been of some value in helping to rid church oratory of its worse
external faults, such as indistinctness, monotonous droning, and inau-
dibility. But it must be doubted that pulpit oratory could achieve the
warmth and spirit and animation so desired by the critics until there
was general realization that a sermon was different from an essay— that
it was hewn from granite, not delicately modeled with clay.

There were hundreds of manuals of elocution published between
1750 and 1900 which were intended primarily for use in schools but
which could sometimes double for use in the home. Commonest of the
school manuals was the book containing an introductory text and an
anthology of pieces for reading or declaiming.

In the later eighteenth century, manuals by William Enfield, John
Walker, and William Scott rolled up a wave of popularity that carried
them into the nineteenth century. Enfield's The Speaker (1774)67 con-
tained 150 pieces suitable for Saturday "Speech Day/' prefaced by a
short essay that compressed elocution into eight rules. Scott's Lessons

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 121

in Elocution (1779)68 went through more than a score of editions in
England and the United States. The book contained nothing original.
American publishers prefaced their editions with four essays on de-
livery borrowed from Walker and Burgh. Walker's Academic Speaker
(1789),69 written for young scholars, contributed, in addition to a set
of extracts, an essay on gesture copied later in many books and one on
the relation between acting and speaking.

The distinctive feature of Henry Innes' Elocution, its Principles and
Practices (c. 1834) 70 is its allotment of space in the introductory text
to the division of vocal production, in which he describes the vocal
mechanism, identifies, and suggests remedies for certain speech defects.

A. M. Hartley used a device that became increasingly popular during
the nineteenth century. In the final part of the introductory text of
The Academic Speaker (1846),71 he names various emotional states
and describes the physical action required to express each. In the
anthology, he places superior numbers over certain words. For example,
he inserts eighteen different numbers in the text of Chatham's speech
against the American war. To find the name of the emotion, the reader
refers to the number key in the headnote; after finding the name, he
refers to the essay which describes the appropriate action. The head-
note to Chatham's speech reads in part:

1. Resolute and angry remonstrance. 2. Indignant appeal to honour. 3.
Lofty pride and regret. ... 16. One of the finest strokes of oratory ever pro-
duced—finger of the right hand sublimely pointed to the tapestry of the
Armada, eyes fixed on EfEngham with ineffable scorn. . . ,72

Taken all in all, these books of text and anthology surveyed the
totality of the field of elocution, but few of them were complete ac-
counts in themselves. The division given most space was that of voice
management, followed far in the rear by vocal production, bodily
action, and pronunciation.

Closely related to this genre and intended not only for the school,
but eteo for the hearth where reading was a "favorite entertainment of
the social circle," 73 were volumes of elegant extracts. Typical is Mrs.
Fanny Palliser's The Modern Poetical Speaker ( 1845) ,74 This book of five
hundred pages, with a preface but no introductory text, was the first
general anthology to include a good set of footnotes to explain hard
passages, to identify obscure allusion, and to provide, in some cases,
factual background for a proper appreciation of the piece. Furthermore,
Mrs. Palliser did not alter a word without putting the substitute in
italics; she always used asterisks to indicate lines deleted; and she did
not "improve" the pieces according to her own lights. The practice of
"improving" selections was commonplace enough. John Thelwall in his

122 THE HERITAGE

anthology, for example, quoted the first ninety-four lines of Collins'
"The Passions, an Ode"; then, deleting Collins' last stanza, substituted
sixty-eight lines from his own pen which differed from the pattern of
the original poem in theme, cadence, and rhyme.75

The book of elegant extracts was executed according to an implicit
code: theory must be cut to a minimum or eliminated entirely; the great
masters should have a place of honor; the modern poets should be
given a niche; no shocking word should pass the printer; extracts from
the big three of early nineteenth-century England should be included
-Mrs. Hemans, Southey, and Scott; and by and large, it was to be
borne in mind that American authors were not quite ready for canoni-
zation.

The reasoned textbook of some length, the third type of manual,
appealed to advanced students, mature minds, teachers, and educators;
if was carefully organized and fully illustrated with examples; it might
contain a relatively short set of selections; and it possessed an air of
scholarship and philosophical completeness. One of the best correlated
and most philosophical of the textbooks is Benjamin Humphrey Smart's
The Theory of Elocution (1819).76 Each of the first three chapters of
Theory corresponds to a division of the field of elocution: "Mechanical
Reading" corresponds to vocal production, the subject matter being
articulation; "Significant Reading" to voice management, the subject
matter being inflection; and "Impassioned Reading" to bodily action,
the subject matter being looks, tones, and gestures. The last two chap-
ters are further explorations of the implications of impassioned reading.

The purposes animating the authors of the school manuals were not
always the same, and, of course, an author might have more than one
purpose in his book. There were, in the main, however, three objectives
that the manuals sought to achieve. The first of these was the acquisi-
tion of elocutionary effectiveness: delivery of discourse with distinct
and pleasing articulation, graceful modulation, and decorous demeanor.
A second purpose, overlaid, to be sure, on the first, was the inculcation
of moral excellence. Toward the end of the period under consideration,
there was an increasing number of authors who laid claim to the teach-
ing of moral precepts and respectable conduct. Likewise a third purpose
appeared with more and more frequency: the development of a taste
for culture and quality.

Both the purposes and the books which the elocutionists ^wrote to
accomplish them, were eagerly accepted in America. The demand for
elocution in this nation being as great or even greater than it was in
England, it is no wonder that the British found a market here for their
books, or that piratical publishers should look for the cheapest way to
capture the market, or that a band of indigenous writers should arise

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 123

to challenge the supremacy of the originators of the movement and
eventually to take over its direction.

Notes

1. For more complete studies of the elocutionary movement, see Mary Margaret
Robb, Oral Interpretation of Literature in American Colleges and Universities ( New
York, 1941); Daniel E. Vandraegen, "The Natural School of Oral Reading in Eng-
land, 1748-1828," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern, 1949; Harold
Friend Harding, "English Rhetorical Theory, 1750-1800," unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Cornell University, 1937; Frederick W. Haberman, "The Elocutionary
Movement in England, 1750-1850," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell Uni-
versity, 1947, which I have used freely; and Warren Guthrie, "The Development
of Rhetorical Theory in America, 1635-1850— V: the Elocutionary Movement-
England," Speech Monographs, XVIII (1951), 17-30.

2. The Spectator, No. 147 (1711). Also see Joseph Addison on this topic in
No. 407 (1712).

3. "On Sleeping in Church," The Works of Jonathan Swift, ed. Walter Scott
(Edinburgh, 1814), VIII, 143.

4. "A Letter to a Young Clergyman," Works, VIII, 347.

5. Quoted by James Burgh, The Art of Speaking (London, 1762), p. 216.
Burgh obtained it from James Fordyce, The Art of Preaching ( Glasgow, 1755 ) .

6. The Letters of P. D. Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield, ed. Lord Mahon (Lon-
don, 1845-1853), I, 366. The date of this letter is 1749. For similar comments see
Letters of Philip Dormer, Fourth Earl of Chesterfield to his Godson and Successor,
ed. Earl of Carnarvon (London, 1890), p. 391; and for more complete study of his
views see Donald C. Bryant, "The Earl of Chesterfield's Advice on Speaking,"
Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXI (December, 1945), 411.

7. The quotation is from "Essays Upon Several Projects," The Works of Daniel
De Foe, ed. William Hazlitt (London, 1840-1843), III; Swift, "A Proposal for
Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English Tongue," Works, IX, 355; John
Dryden, Dedication of Troilus and Cressida; R. H., New Atlantis, cited by Edmund
Freeman, "A Proposal for an English Academy in 1660," Modern Language Review,
XIX (July, 1924), 291-300.

8. In a letter to Sir Peter Wyche, 1665. See J. E. Spingarn, Critical Essays of
the Seventeenth Century (London, 1908), II, 310-312. In a letter to Samuel Pepys
in 1689, Evelyn refers to his work on this committee and to his idea of an Academy
for the "Art and Improvement of speaking and writing well" ( p. 327 ) .

9. Nathan Bailey, Universal Etymological English Dictionary (London, 1731);
William Kenrick, A New Dictionary (London, 1773); John Ash, New and Com-
plete Dictionary of the English Language (London, 1775).

10. Thomas Sheridan, A General Dictionary of the English Language ( London,
1780); John Walker, A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the
English Language (London, 1791).

11. "Discourse on Style," trans, and ed. Lane Cooper in Theories of Style (New
York, 1907), p. 171.

12. Aphorisms and Maxims (London, 1748), Maxim 108.

13. W. E. H. Lecky, A History of England in the Eighteenth Century (London,
1887), VI, 166.

14. Karl Mantzius, A History of Theatrical Art (London, 1909), V, 383 ff.;
Joseph Knight, David Garrick (London, 1894), p. 25 ff.

15. Burgh, p. 154.

16. Thomas Sheridan, Lectures on Elocution (London, 1762), p. 1.

17. The Speaker (London, 1780), Introduction.

18. Lectures, p. 10.

124 THE HERITAGE

19. John Rice, An Introduction to the Art of Reading with Energy and Propriety
(London, 1765); William Cockin, The Art of Reading Written Language, or, an
Essay on Reading ( London, 1775 ) .

20. John Mason, An Essay on Elocution, or Pronunciation (London, 1748), title
page.

21. John Walker, Elements of Elocution (London, 1781), I, 2.

22. Despite the claim that they "follow nature," the elocutionists have sometimes
been labeled "mechanists" as well as "naturalists." For vaiying interpretations on
this question see James A. Winans, "Whately on Elocution," QJS, XXXI (February,
1945), 1-3; Charles A, Fritz, "From Sheridan to Rush," QJS, XVI (February,
1930), 82 £E.; Wayland Maxfield Parrish, "The Concept of 'Naturalness/" QJS,
XXXVII (December, 1951), 448-454; Robb, op. cit., 16-69 passim; Haberman,
op. cit., 49-67 passim; Vandraegen, op. cit. passim, and his "Thomas Sheridan and
the Natural School," SM, XX (1953), 58-64, Richard D. Harper, "The Rhetorical
Theory of Thomas Sheridan," unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Wisconsin, 1951, pp.
200 ff.

23. John Thelwall, "Introductory Discourse on the Nature and Objects of Elo-
cutionary Science" (London, 1805); A. S. Thelwall, A Lecture on the Importance
of Elocution in Connexion with Ministerial Usefulness (London, 1850); James
Rush, The Philosophy of the Human Voice (Philadelphia, 1827), Introduction; A.
M. Bell, Principles of Elocution (Edinburgh, 1849), Preface; C. J. Plumptre, Kings
College Lectures in Elocution (London, 1881), p. 226.

24. Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, p. 9.

25. See Spingarn, Critical Essays, "IV, The Trend Toward Simplicity," pp.
xxxvi-xlviu.

26. Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society of London (London, 1667),
4th ed. (London, 1734), p. 112.

27. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, XI, iii, 2, 6; Cicero, Brutus, XXXVIII.

28. (London).

29. Mason, Elocution, p. 5.

30. Ibid., p. 22.

31. Ibid., p. 32.

32. Ibid., pp. 23-24.

33. (London).

34. Title page.

35. Professor Parrish is the latest scholar to count them. See footnote 5 in "The
Burglarizing of Burgh, or the Case of the Purloined Passions/' QJSf XXXVIII
(December, 1952), 433.

36. P. 173. Pagination refers to the edition retitled "On Public Speaking" and
bound with Sheridan's Rhetorical Grammar (Philadelphia, 1783).

37. Burgh, p. 166.

38. See note 35, supra.

39. (London), 18 vols.

40. British Education, or the Source of the Disorders of Great Britain ( London,
1756), A General View of the Scheme for the Improvement of Education (Dublin,
1757); A Plan of Education for the Young Nobility and Gentry of Great Britain
(London, 1769).

41. Thomas Sheridan, A General Dictionary of the English Language (London,
1780), 2 vols. A Rhetorical Grammar was published originally in England as a
preface to the Dictionary. It was published separately in America under the editor-
ship of Archibald Gamble (Philadelphia, 1783). This American edition contains a
seventy-page appendix entitled "On Public Speaking," a reprinting without credit
of Part I of Burgh's The Art of Speaking (London, ed. of 1775). Several investiga-
tors, with this volume in their hands, have erroneously ascribed authorship to
Sheridan.

42. (London).

ENGLISH SOURCES OF ELOCUTION 125

43. (London).

44. (London).

45. See John B. Newman, "Joshua Steele: Prosody in Speech Education/' un-
published Ph D. dissertation, New York University, 1950; by the same author, "The
Phonetic Aspect of Joshua Steele's System of Prosody/' SM, XVIII (1951), 279-
287; and "The Role of Joshua Steele in the Development of Speech Education in
America/' SM, XX (1953), 65-73.

46. See Newman, "Phonetic Aspect/* footnote 1, for a discussion of the title and
the two editions of this book.

47. T. S. Omond, English Metrists (London, 1921), 94 et passim; George Saints-
bury, A History of English Prosody (London, 1908), II, 548 passim.

48. ( London) , 28th ed. in 1826.

49. DNB.

50. Place of publication for all six is London.

51. See Newman, "Role of Joshua Steele."

52. (London).

53. The Oratorical Class-Book (Glasgow, 1824), p. 7.

54 Merritt Caldwell, A Practical Manual of Elocution (Philadelphia, 1845),
Preface, v; C. P. Bronson, Elocution; or Mental and Vocal Philosophy (Louisville,
1845), engravings reprinted without credit; Albert M. Bacon, A Manual of Gesture
(New York, 1872), Preface; R. I. Fulton and T. C. Trueblood, Practical Elements
of Elocution (Boston, 1893), Preface and engravings; Joseph A. Mosher, The Es-
sentials of Effective Gesture (New York, 1916), Preface.

55. Frederick W. Haberman, "The Bell Family—A Dynasty in Speech/' Southern
Speech Journal, XV (December, 1949), 112-117.

56. Two publications which contain his philosophy in briefest form are A New
Elucidation of the Principles of Speech and Elocution (Edinburgh, 1849), 168 edi-
tions by 1892; and Essays and Postscripts on Elocution (New York, 1886).

57. See Estelle L. McElroy, "Alexander Melville BeH— Elocutionist and Phone-
tician/' unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1951.

58. See Otto Jesperson, The Articulation of Speech Sounds ( Marburg in Hessen,
1889), p. 3; Maurice Grammont, Traite de Phonetique (Paris, 1933), p. 13; Claude
E. Kantner and Robert West, Phonetics (New York, 1941), p. 287.

59. (London).

60. (London).

61. "Directions Concerning Pronunciation and Gesture" (London, 1793). See
The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A.M. ( London, 1840-1842 ) , 4th ed., XIII,
488 ff.

62. (Oxford).

63. (London).

64. (London).

65. The notes made by the clergyman tutored by Garrick were systematized by
a friend, J. W. Anderson, and published under the title The Common Prayer, as
read by the late Mr. Garrick (London, 1797).

66. Cull, Mode of Reading, p. 67.

67. (London). At least eight editions by 1851. 1 have used an edition of 1798.

68. (Edinburgh). 12th English ed. in 1799; at least 11 American editions by
1820. 1 have used an edition of 1808 published at Worchester.

69. (London). At least three editions by 180L I have used an edition of 1800
published at Dublin.

70. I have used the 9th ed., n.d. References in the Catalogue of the British
Museum and in the English Catalogue of Books, which list as the main title, what
appears as the subtitle in the 9th ed., indicate that the 1st ed. is London, 1834.

71. (Glasgow). I have used the Glasgow, 1853 edition. The Academic Speaker
is very similar to his The Oratorical Class-Book (Glasgow, 1824), 15th ed. in 1854.

72. Hartley, Academic Speaker, p. 68.

126 THE HERITAGE

73. Thomas Ewing, Principles of Elocution (Edinburgh, 1815); 36th ed. m
1861, The quotation is from the 12th ed. (Edinburgh, 1828), Preface.

74. (London).

75. John Thelwall, Illustrations of English Rhythms (London, 1812),

76. (London). Smart also published a companion exercise book, The Practice
of Elocution (London, 1820); 4th ed., 1842.

PART II

Rhetoric, Elocution, and Speech

U American Contributions to Rhetorical
Theory and Homiletics

JOHN P. HOSHOR

At the opening of the nineteenth century, rhetorical education in
America was based largely on the classical writings on the subject-
principally the works of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian-and, more
especially, on the works of certain English rhetoricians, notably Blair
and Campbell. Their works, together with Whately s Elements of
Rhetoric., published in 1828, were the most widely used textbooks in
American colleges in the first half of the century, and continued to be
an important influence throughout the century.

As early as 1800, however, an American rhetoric sufficiently complete
to ke_c?#sic*ered a contribution to rhetorical theory made Its appear-
aafi^athis was the edition of the collected lectures on rhetoric by Presi-
dent John \Vitherspoon of Princeton. Lecturing at Princeton, Wither-
spoon emphasized two general points of view which were repeated and
developed by Chauncey Goodrich lecturing a few years later at Yale.
These were, first, that wMejsome natural talent or capacity "is evi-
dently necessary to the instruction or stucly of this art," the orator is es-
sentially a product of his practice and training rather than his heredity;
and, second, that the wise.stp.dy and translation of great models is an
invaluable aid in developing $ME in the art of rhetoric.1

Witherspoon's theory of rhetoric is essentially classical, although he
does not accord to inventio the prominence nor importance given this
canon by the writers of antiquity. The orator, he feels, is more likely
to have difficulty "in selecting what is proper, than in inventing some-
thing that seems to be tolerable/' 2 In one other way Witherspoon differs
somewhat from the classical tradition. He defined more clearly the
objects of speech-making: information, demonstration, persuasion, or

129

130 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

entertainment, While these are similar to Campbell's objects of oratory,
they represent a sharper distinction and are developed quite differently.

In 1806, Joh^Quincy Adams was inducted as first Boylston Professor
of Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard University, and in 1810 his lectures
were published. In terms of completeness and fidelity to classical doc-
trines, Adams* theory of rhetoric surpasses Witherspoon's. As a part of
the American development of rhetorical theory in the nineteenth cen-
tury it is significant to note that Adams' lectures rely very little on the
works of the great English rhetoricians of the period, such as Campbell
and Blair, and almost not at all on the English elocutionists such as
Sheridan, Steele, and Walker. It is noteworthy also that Adams placed
emphasis on deliberative and judicial oratory because of their special
importance in a free country.3

Adams regarded speaking as the "necessary adjunct and vehicle of
reason," and the means for the conveyance of thought in "rational inter-
course with his fellow creatures and of humble communion with his
God." 4 He used Aristotle's division of oratory into demonstrative, de-
liberative, and judicial, and he added pulpit oratory.

In accordance with the instructions laid down by the Harvard Over-
seers in assigning the Boylston Professorship, Adams dealt in his lec-
tures with invention, disposition, style, and pronunciation (delivery).
His treatment of these canons was largely a restatement of the doctrines
of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian. The lectures do not treat delivery
to any great extent. He referred without enthusiasm to the works of
Sheridan and Walker in the field of elocution, and himself offered no
program for the training of voice and action. He does, however, give
rather explicit instructions as to the method of speech preparation.5

In conclusion, while Adams' lectures are for the most part a restate-
ment of classical doctrines, they indicate a tendency dn the part of some
American rhetoricians to break away from the complete reliance on the
English rhetorics. Unfortunately, however, they failed to re-establish
the classical trend as a major movement—as indicated by the tremen-
dous popularity of the elocutionary movement which was soon to
follow.

At about the same time that Adams' lectures were published, §amuel
Knox., the principal of Baltimore College, published A Compendious
System of Rhetoric. This was for the most part an abstract of the work
of Blair, with material on tropes arid figures 3ra.wn frpjqpi Jjol^Stirliiig's
System of Rhetoric (1770). A little book, arranged in catechetical form,
it touches upon all the divisions of rhetoric; but except for style the
treatment is superficial. It is significant only in that it indicates the pre-
occupation with style and composition characteristic of many of the
early nineteenth-century writers and teachers. Although the works of

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 131

Blair and Campbell, with their essentially classical interpretations, were
dominant in American colleges at this time, Knox defined rhetoric as
"the art of speaking and writing, in every species of style and composi-
tion, agreeably to the most approved taste, and literary improvement
in language." 6 It was probably this emphasis on style and composition,
seen also in the works of such early nineteenth century writers as New-
man and Channing, that paved the way for the elocution movement of
the middle part of the century which virtually divorced delivery from
the other aspects of rhetoric.

Samuel JP.h Newman's A Practical System of Rhetoric, published in
1827, was the first American rhetoric to be used widely in the schools.
It replaced Jamieson's Grammar of Rhetoric and Polite Literature in
such American colleges as Bowdoin, Amherst, and Wesleyan. Newman
is almost entirely concerned with written composition; persuasion as
such forms no part of his rhetorical system. The instructions of rhetoric,
he says, are twofold: "those which point out the excellencies of style,
and those which give cautions against its most frequent faults." 7

While this book offers little that is original, it is noteworthy in that
it is probably the first American rhetoric intended strictly as a text-
book, and as such is well written and supplied with ample illustrative
material. It should be noted, also, as a further step by Americans to-
ward developing an art of belles lettres distinct from elocution.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, the chairs of profes-
sor of rhetoric at three of America's leading colleges were held by men
who, while they did not publish their lectures in textbook form, were
presenting to their students rhetorical theories of remarkable balance
and scope. They were Porter at Andover Academy, Goodrich at Yale,
and Channing at Harvard. While it is difficult to assess the influence of
these men in determining the development of rhetorical theory in
America, it is certain that in their institutions, at least, they were highly
respected. They influenced many of the men who became leaders in
American life during the nineteenth century. Porter was also an impor-
tant figure in the development of elocution and homiletics.

Ebenezer Porter Lield the Baitlett Professorship of Sacred Rhetoric at
Andgver Academy from 1813 to 1831. His lectures on homiletics and
preaching were published in 1834, and his lectures on eloquence and
style were collected by Reverend Matthews and published in 1836. 8
Like Adams at Harvard, Porter was required by the rules of his office
to discuss certain specified subjects, including the importance of ora-
tory, and the principles of invention, disposition, style, and delivery.
Like Adams, also, PoxtQrj treatment of the^cg^Qns pf rhetoric is-©ssen-
tially classical, leaning heavily on Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian;
and o^CSm^'eS and Blair among the moderns. Except for style and

132 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

delivery, the divisions of rhetoric are treated briefly. Style is treated
rather fully, with the material coming almost entirely from Quintilian,
Longinus, Campbell, and Blair. Delivery is discussed in seven of the
lectures, and reveals Porter as an adherent of the Walker school.

From 1817 to 1839, Chauncey Allen Goodrich was Professor of
Rhetoric at Yale University. His lectures, not published in the nine-
teenth century, probably had little direct influence on the development
of rhetorical theory and training outside of Connecticut. His book
Select British Eloquence, however, was read widely both in this coun-
try and in England; and in the course of his careful rhetorical criticism
of the twenty orators, ranging from Sir John Eliot to Lord Brougham,
he included most of the precepts covered in his lectures at Yale. Al-
though we are not directly concerned here with criticism as such, it is
noteworthy that Goodrich was the first rhetorical critic to recognize
clearly the necessity for developing an adequate biographical-historical
setting for the evaluation of a speech or a speaker. His clear delineation
of the social forces which produce and are in turn molded by great
speakers set a pattern for rhetorical criticism which is common today.

Goodrich's lectures are essentially classical in conception and scope,
although he rarely refers to the classical rhetoricians. His lectures fall
easily into the traditional divisions.

Public speaking, Goodrich said, is of utmost importance to the indi-
vidual and to society. In no country, he pointed out, "is the power of
impressing thought on others through the medium of language so con-
trolling in its influence as here." 9 That Goodrich did not approve of
the separation of delivery from the other parts of rhetoric by the elocu-
tionists of his day is seen in the following paragraph from one of his
introductory lectures:

The end of pubMc speaking is not to be eloquent. I say this because an
error on this subject has had great influence in corrupting eloquence—pecul-
iarly in this country, because men are here peculiarly dependent on public
speaking. It has produced a tendency to speak for the sake for delivery, of
attracting the attention of constituents, of establishing a reputation for elo-
quence. But this attitude always defeats its object, produces unnatural lan-
guage, strained sentiments, etc.10

Although his lectures contain no subdivision entitled "invention,"
Goodrich does, in various places, deal with choice of subject, sources
of ideas and arguments, techniques of collecting evidence, tests of
arguments and evidence, methods of adapting to audience interests,
and techniques of making the speaker appear "wise" and "good." xl

More than any American rhetorician of the nineteenth century, with
the possible exception of Charming at Harvard, Goodrich was a student
of philosophy, and to his total concept of invention may be added his

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 133

significant discussion of the mental faculties which produce the great
speaker. The great end of education, he says, is "to subject our faculties
both intellectual and physical to a rigid course of discipline . . . making
every power the ready and active instrument of the will. . . ." 12 Certain
mental phenomena which had by various writers been designated
"original" mental faculties are defined and analyzed. These include:
abstraction, comprehension, generalization, judgment, reason, imagina-
tion, taste, and belief. Although his descriptions of these powers follow
closely the work of the Scottish philosophers, Reid and Stewart, he
differs from them in concluding that most of them are really laws of
mental action, rather than original mental faculties.13

Goodrich's treatment of language and style reveals many of the
ideas of Blair and Campbell, with some interesting additions of his
own. Good style, for Goodrich, consists of any easy and perspicuous use
of language, with energy of thought and richness of imagination.14 His
interest in lexicography led him to a careful study of etymology and of
pronunciation standards.15

The "moral and intellectual principles of our nature" Goodrich con-
siders most important for the student orator, but the cultivation of style
and elocution are scarcely less important.16 His treatment of delivery
was essentially classical, with the addition of some attention to the
separate discipline of elocution popular at the time. He would definitely
be in the "think-the-thought" or "natural" tradition in delivery as repre-
sented in his day by the teachings of Sheridan.17

Goodrich's contemporary at Harvard University was Ijldward T.
Channing^ J3oylston Professor of Rhetoric from 1819 to 1852. Channing
did not publish his lectures until after his retirement, and he wrote no
systematic treatise on the theory of rhetoric. His influence on many of
the outstanding speakers and writers of the nineteenth century was
undoubtedly of considerable importance, however, and his theory of
rhetoric is well worth examining.

Channing is especially interesting to the student of the history of
rhetorical theory for his rather unusual concept of the nature and mean-
ing of rhetoric. At a time when there was a definite trend toward the
separation of style and invention from delivery, on the one hand, and
belles lettres on the other, the Harvard teacher's concept of rhetoric
included aspects of all three. RhgJonCpJie believed, was the fundamen-
tal art of communication, and its principles applied BdtK to speech and
to writing. As he stated if: " """"""*

I am inclined to consider rhetoric when reduced to a system in books, as a
body of rules derived from experience and observation, extending to all com-
munication by language and designed to make it efficient. It does not ask
whether a man is to be a speaker or writer,— a poet, philosopher, or debator;

134 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

but simply,— is it his wish to be put in the right way of communicating his
mind with power to others, by words spoken or written.18

Belles lettres, in the sense of appreciation of the forms of writing, and
analysis of their beauty, was specifically omitted from Channing's con-
cept. Rhetoric, he said, "leaves this field of criticism to other laborers,
and limits its inspection of general literature to the purpose of ascer-
taining and illustrating the essentials of accurate and forcible expres-
sion in all good composition." 19

In spite of this rather unusual definition of the scope of rhetoric,
however, Channing lectured on all the classical canons of rhetoric. He
outlined the duties of rhetoric as being the analysis and explanation of
the style or method of persuasive address, instruction in finding and
arranging arguments, instruction in speaking, and instruction in the
principles of composition or good style.20

An interesting point of difference between Channing and Goodrich
was the former's distrust of the use of models by the student orator.
"Minds of common cast may profit by reading and obeying, but genius
suffers." 21 Goodrich, on the other hand, was a strong advocate of the
use of models— particularly the classical orators— in the training of
speakers. Yet Goodrich, like Channing, was interested in faculty psy-
chology, and in particular the work of Thomas Reid. Like his Yale
contemporary, Channing believed that the rhetorician was concerned
with the development of the various faculties of the mind. His lectures
do not include a systematic survey of the faculties; he asserted only
that one purpose of rhetoric was to strengthen man's natural powers.22

Channing recognized more clearly than any nineteenth-century rheto-
rician that the orator should not be a leader of the multitude, but rather
should be considered "one of the multitude, deliberating with them
upon common interests, which are well understood and valued by
all." 23 This view of the speaker, held the Harvard professor, does not
reduce the "true dignity and resources of the art," 24

In 1822, E. G. Welles published a small book of fifty-six pages entitled
The Orators Guide; or rules for speaking and composing; fyom the best
authorities. This bobk, whfle it offers nothing new, is interesting as an
indication of the growing attentiqn4 in America to voice aad, gesture as
separate problems., Welles was primarily interested in gesture and
action, which he called pronunciation after the terminology of the
classical rhetoricians. He quotes Cicero, Demosthenes, and Quintilian,
out of context, to show that "Pronunciation, which was also called
action, was considered by the most competent judges among the

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 135

ancients, as the primary part o£ an Orator's province— as almost the only
source from which he can hope to succeed, in the art of persuasion." 25
The almost absurd artificiality of Welles' concept of gesture may be
indicated in his own words:

The several motions of the body ought to be accommodated to the various
tones and inflections of the voice. When the voice is even, and moderate, little
gesture is required; and nothing can be more improper, than violent motion,
in discoursing upon ordinary and familiar subjects. The motion of the body
should rise, therefore, in proportion to the vehemence and energy of the
sentiment, and appear to be the natural and genuine effect of it.26

Possibly the first book by an American bearing the title of rhetoric
buf devoted exclusively to writing rather than speaking was the Ele-
ments of Rhetoric and Literary Criticism., compiled and arranged by
James K. Boyd, Principal of Jefferson County Institute. This book paid
not even lip service to the tradition of rhetoric in the classical sense.
That it represented a fairly common conception of the extent and scope
of rhetorical training at the time is indicated by the fact that, first pub-
lished in 1844, it had gone through six editions by 1848.

Boyd expressed his belief that "the labors of teachers in all our schools
are directed too exclusively to the securing of correct habits in speaking
and reading the language; and that altogether too limited an amount of
time and share of attention are employed in teaching the art of cor-
rectly writing the language." 27 It is interesting to note Boyd's state-
ment that "the habit of writing much with accuracy would greatly aid
us, also, in speaking the language with accuracy and elegance/' 28

Part III of the book, devoted to a discussion of the different kinds of
composition, discusses very briefly the traditional six parts of an ora-
tion. The remainder of the book is devoted to grammar, style, composi-
tion, the history of the English language, and a brief review of modern
British and American literature.

Also in 1844 was published a very interesting translation from the
German of Dr. Francis Theremin's Eloquence A Virtue; or, Outlines of
a Systematic Rhetoric. William G. T. Shedd, the translator, was profes-
sor of English literature at the University of Vermont. His free transla-
tion of Theremin's work, his excellent preface, and his advocacy may
have influenced American views of rhetoric.

In the preface Shedd restated the philosophical justification for rheto-
ric and presented the thesis that the end of rhetoric must be moral. The
state of rhetoric at the time, he felt, called for an "infusion" of the moral
element found in Theremin's treatise:

Rhetoric, in its best estate, is but the science of Form, or, to use Milton's

phrase, an 'organic'— i.e. instrumental—Art Dissevered from Logic, or the

necessary laws of Thought, it has become dissevered from the seat of life,

136 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and has degenerated into a mere collection of rules respecting the structure
of sentences and the garnish of expression.29

Theremin insisted that, while the means employed by eloquence may
be aesthetic and the form in which it appears artistic, the great end
constantly aimed at must be moral, and only moral. Shedd believed that
here was a rhetoric "that is not only formative and plastic, but organific,
and has thus superinduced life upon the lifeless." 30

Theremin's treatment of invention is particularly interesting. The
purpose of eloquence, he held, was to "produce a change in the senti-
ments and conduct of other men." This being the case, "the inquiry after
its fundamental principles, therefore, becomes changed quite naturally
into this: what are the laws according to which a free being may exert
influence upon other free beings? And the answer to this question can
be derived only from ethics." 31

Against this background, Theremin formulated the highest law of
elocjuence; "Ttte particular idea wliich the orator wishes to realize is
carried back to the necessary ideas of the hearer.'* These necessary
'Ideas" he defined broadly as being Duty, Virtue, and Happiness.32 The
orator, then, to connect the premises of his speech with these innate
moral urges must conform to three subordinate methods or categories:
Truth, showing that his idea is in fact Duty, Virtue, or Happiness; Pos-
sibility, showing that his idea is practicable; and Actuality, showing
that his idea actually exists or the event has happened.

Theremin's system of invention and arrangement, though based on
this ethical analysis, follows the general line of classical theory, and
includes a discussion of the speaker's ethos, and the means of exciting
the affections.

In addition to editing Theremin, Shedd did some lecturing and writ-
ing of his own on rhetoric. His most extensive statement is found in an
inaugural address at Auburn Theological Seminary entitled "The Char-
acteristics, and Importance of a Natural Rhetoric." Because its appro-
priate subject matter is the form of a discourse, rhetoric is especially
liable to formalism and artificiality.33 He appeals, therefore, for a
rhetoric "that educates like nature. ... a Rhetoric that organizes and
vitalizes the material that is made over to it for purposes of form. . . ." 34

HenogLjfcLJBlSJ^ a contemporary of Shedd, was another American
rhetojician who made '"sosoe original* €Oi^ the

iro^^lttte In the preface of his first work, Elements of the Art

of Rhetoric, published in 1850, Day stated what he believed to be his
contribution:

First, Invention is treated as a distinct and primary department of the art
of Rhetoric. From most English treatises this department has been generally

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 137

excluded: and rhetoric has been generally regarded as confined almost ex-
clusively to style.35

Day objected to Whately's concept of rhetoric because he felt the Eng-
lish writer confined himself to "mere argumentative composition, or the
art of producing Belief." This view, he felt, excluded aU "Explanatory
Discourse" as well as all "Persuasion/' His own system included expla-
nation, conviction, excitation, and persuasion as the "possible immediate
objects of all discourse/'
Rhetoric, according to Day, is "the art of discourse."

The proper province of Rhetoric, as also its specific relations to other arts
and sciences, are determined at once by the faculty which it immediately and
exclusively respects,—the faculty of discourse, or the capacity in man of com-
municating his mental states to other minds by means of language.36

Although he discussed disposition briefly, Day ruled out delivery from
his treatment of rhetoric and confined himself almost entirely to inven-
tion and style. The success of the elocutionists in establishing a separate
discipline in this country by the middle of the century is evidenced by
Day's statement about delivery:

The art of rhetoric cannot in strictness be regarded as having accomplished
its end until the mental states to be communicated are actually conveyed to
the mind addressed. It, therefore, may properly comprehend delivery.

The mode of communication, however, is not essential. The thought may
be conveyed by the pen or by the voice. Elocution, or the vocal expression of
thought, is not accordingly a necessary part of rhetoric.37

Rhetorical invention as such was defined by Day as "the art of sup-
plying the requisite thought in kind and form for discourse." 3S It em-
braced, therefore, disposition, as well as invention proper. The parts of
invention were determined by his analysis of the ends or objects of
discourse, and were stated concisely:

The process by which a new conception is produced, is by Explanation;
that by which a new judgment is produced is by Confirmation. A change in
the sensibilities is affected by the process of Excitation; and in the will, by
that of Persuasion.39

More than most of his contemporaries, Day was solidly in the classical
tradition of purposive rhetoric. His unusual emphasis on the importance
of directing discourse to a specific end, and selecting and arranging
materials most effectively to accomplish that end marks him as one of
the few original thinkers of his century.

Style, the other "great department" of rhetoric, Day thought to have
certain absolute qualities, such as oral properties, suggestive proper-
ties, grammatical properties, subjective properties (which included sig-

138 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

nificance and naturalness), and objective properties (which included
clearness, energy, and elegance.)40 Although his discussion of these
properties was not original, he did a much better job than most rhetori-
cians of the century of relating them to the various kinds of discourse.

The^next work on rhetoric to appear in America was Matthew Boyd
Hope's Princeton Textbook in Rhetoric, published in 1859. The Prince-
ton professor of rhetoric wrote his textbook in part to replace Whately.
Whately's Rhetoric, Hope felt, was inadequate for his students "in the
matter of their Belles Lettres culture" and Whately's work on elocu-
tion he found "not only inferior in its method and handling, but posi-
tively, and mischievously erroneous, in its theoretical principles, and
consequently in its practical precepts." 41

The art of rhetoric, the Princeton professor believed, differed from
other arts in that "it uses articulate language as its proper instrument";
and "it has for its special object: 1, to convince, and 2, to persuade." The
difference between conviction and persuasion was that "the former,
(conviction) is an effect upon the under$tanding,—the intellectual or
logical faculties,— the latter, (persuasion) is an effect upon the will,
producing a change either of character, or conduct. . . ." 42

Hope's treatment of conviction does not differ significantly from
Whately's. Persuasion, also, is treated in much the same way as the
English rhetorician's, except that some influence of Shedd's translation
of Theremin is apparent in Hope's placing of persuasion in the domain
of ethics and insisting upon a high ethical standard of persuasion.

Like Day, Channing, Goodrich, and others of his contemporaries,
Hope was strongly influenced by faculty psychology, and his analysis
of the psychological conditions in persuasion, while not original, was
more specific than most. Persuasion, he said, rests upon "the presence
of some motive principle, in the active constitution of the human spirit,
—and reaches the will, by kindling some desire, for the attainment of its
object,— and 2, the conviction of the understanding, that the means
proposed in persuasion, promise to attain the end." 4B These two condi-
tions, Hope said, constituted a motive; and since man is a moral being,
free and self -moved, it is by motives, in the described sense, that he is
governed. His classification of the "motive principles to human action"
implied in moral freedom is fairly specific, and probably quite repre-
sentative of the thinking of most of his contemporaries.

The Princeton professor discussed arrangement or disposition in con-
nection with persuasion and conviction; he wrote of style and elocution
as less essential but "tributary to the end sought in rhetoric." 44 His
treatment of style is brief and does not add materially to the work of
Blair and Whately. As essential properties of effective style he dis-
cussed clearness, force, and beauty.

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 139

The treatment of elocution is also fairly brief and drawn from the
work of Rush, whom Hope greatly admired. Austin's Chironomia is
credited as the primary source of his brief discussion of action, although
the influence of Whately is quite apparent in his summary statement
about gestures: "Study the sentiment, and enter into the emotion, of
what you wish to say; then be natural, earnest, simple, and as graceful
as possible." 45

Following the publication of Hope's work, there were no more Amer-
ican rhetorics until 1867, when A Manual of the Art of Prose Composi-
tion by John Mitchell Bonnell was published, This was primarily a book
orreomposition dealing with style and with invention. There are also
chapters on argument and one on the oration. Mostly a distillation of
Blair, it offers little that is original, and is interesting chiefly as an ex-
ample of the extent to which the delivery and the composition of
speeches had become separate disciplines in America.

The following year, 1868, an interesting little book by William Pitten-
ger gjtiJ^led^jOmtOT.U $flcT®A $nd Secular: or, the Extemporaneous
Speaker was published. This was not so much an attempt to formulate
a sysfSaatic theory as it was to set forth the outlines of a practical
course pjjraining for an orator. The prerequisites for being a success-
ful orator, Pittenger said, were intellectual competency, strength of
body, command of language, courage, firmness, and self-reliance. Some
very general, and probably not very practical, rules are offered for
acquiring these characteristics. Part III, "Secular Oratory," simply
describes very briefly the different types of address: instructive, deliber-
ative, legal, controversial, and popular.

Although he published no work on rhetoric, Ralph Waldo Emerson
should be included in the list of Americans who contributed to the
development of rhetorical theory. Occasional comments on rhetorical
theory are found scattered throughout his writing; and in 1870 and
again in 187? he published essays, both entitled "Eloquence," in which
he set forth his views on the subject.

Emerson defined eloquence as "the power to translate a truth into
language perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak." 46
Reminiscent of his general transcendentalist philosophy is the interest-
ing belief that every man, if properly stimulated, can rise above his
mundane weaknesses, and become for the moment an orator. This latent
or potential talent also, he said, accounts for the fact that assemblies of
men are "susceptible/' "The eloquence of one stimulates all the rest,
some up to the speaking-point and all others to a degree that makes
them good receivers and conductors. . . ." 47

Emerson also contributed some ideas on audience analysis which
reveal great insight. In every public assembly, he said, there are many

140 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

audiences, "each of which rules in turn," 48 All of these audiences, how-
ever, "which successively appear to greet the variety of style and
topic," 49 are the same persons-the same individual sometimes taking
active part in them all.

He stressed the importance of accurate knowledge and personal
force. The orator, he said, must first have "power of statement,— must
have the fact and know how to tell it." 50

Next in importance he placed "method," by which he apparently
meant what was called dispositio by the classical rhetoricians: "The
orator possesses no information which his hearers have not, yet he
teaches them to see the thing with his eyes. By the new placing, the cir-
cumstances acquire new solidity and worth." 51

Imagery also is considered important both as an aid to effectiveness
and an aid to memory. Nothing, he said, "so works on the human mind,
barbarous or civil, as a trope." 52

Such separate parts, however, do not constitute eloquence. For
genuine eloquence the speaker must be "sane," by which he meant that
the speaker must be able to control his powers; and also there must be
"a reinforcing of man from events, so as to give the double force of
reason and destiny." 53

A rhetorical handbook of 75 pages entitled The Outlines of Rheto-
ric was published in 1877. Joseph H. Gilmore, the author, was a pro-
fessor of rhetoric at the University of Rochester. It is a closely packed,
carefully prepared outline of rhetorical theories oiTS^ention and style.
Written in the form of questions and answers, it quotes liberally from
Aristotle, Whately, Campbell, Theremin, and Blair.

Though it probably adds nothing new to rhetorical theory, Gilm'ore's
book is worthy of mention for its rather novel style and unusual clarity
and conciseness of expression. The following quotation will serve to
show the method and style of the book:

1. Define Rhetoric according to the view of Aristotle— Whately— Campbell.
Which definition are you inclined to adopt, and why?

Aristotle regards Rhetoric as the Art of Persuasion; Whately, as the Art of
Conviction; Campbell, as the Art of Discourse. Campbell's definition is to be
preferred as more comprehensive than either of the others; although Aristotle
justly emphasizes the most vital object of all Rhetorical study.54

In 1879, George JL Raymond published 1^

book is iatheeloctitlDn traditfon,*an^eais primarily, with three aspects
of defireryi '"xtwce eidture? emphasis (time, pitch, force, volume), and
gesture. It is of interest here because it included a seventeen-page
appendix called "Hints for the Composition of Orations." It might be
said, therefore, to represent the beginning of the reunion of delivery

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 141

and composition of speeches which took place toward the end of the
nineteenth century and has continued in the present century.

A two-volume work, The Art of Speech, by L. T. Townsend was pub-
lished in 1880. It was used, among other places, at De Pauw University,
and was reported to have had great influence on the career of Albert
Beveridge.

Volume I, "Studies in Poetry and Prose," contains an interesting
account of the origin and history of speech. Townsend, who was a pro-
fessor of rhetoric in Boston University, concluded that "Human speech
is both God-given and from human invention/' 55 He struck a dis-
tinctly contemporary note by saying that thought is essentially "interior
speech." Style, also considered in Volume I, is mostly drawn from Blair.

Volume II, "Studies in Eloquence and Logic," discusses definitions of
oratory and eloquence by Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, Macaulay, Bau-
tain, and Emerson. Townsend concludes that Eloquence as an art "is
such a representation of thought in vocal, written, or gesture language,
as is adapted to persuade. The aim in eloquence is to persuade the will
and the moral faculties, rather than -merely to convince the judg-
ment." 5G Chapters IV through VII of the second volume contain a
series of "Inferences" drawn from an analysis of Demosthenes' orations.
In rather sketchy and poorly organized form, these chapters contain a
fairly complete system of rhetoric, including invention, disposition,
style, and delivery.

In the same year, 1880, Rhetoric^as an Art of Persuasion . . . from the
standpoint of a lawyer was published. The frontispiece lists the author
as "An Old Lawyer." His name was Qaniel F. Miller, In the preface
Miller stated that he had "studied many American and English authors
on the subject of rhetoric, but found nothing in them to compare in
usefulness and thoroughness of instruction to Quintilian's Institutes of
Oratory." His system of rhetoric is lately a condensation of QumtHian
with some influencejrom Cicero.

Ttioxigri it offers little that could be called original, this work is note-
worthy in at least two respects. In the first place, it is written in a very
colloquial style and contains many interesting "asides" which occa-
sionally show considerable insight. As one instance of this, in discussing
induction he says that Bacon is credited with developing inductive
reasoning, and Aristotle with developing the syllogism. Actually, said
Miller, neither is true, induction being "the common vernacular of
human speech, and, besides, there are plenty of books extant which
contain numberless instances of the use both of the inductive and syl-
logistic styles of argument, written ages before the name of either
Bacon or Aristotle adorned the pages of history." 57

The other notable feature of this book is the inclusion of a great many

142 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION., AND SPEECH

examples and illustrations drawn largely from Quintilian, Lincoln, J. F.
Dillon, Cicero, Plato, Erskine, Curran, Henry Clay, and Webster.

As might be expected, Miller does a good job of stating the principles
and methods of invention and disposition, but the treatment of style
is poorly organized, being mostly a listing of numerous figures of speech
with illustrations.

Ill

Adams Sherman Hill, Boylston Professor of Rhetoric at Harvard,
publish^his Principles of Rhetoric in 1878. It is perhaps of interest
chiefly because it indicates the extent to which the Boylston Professor-
ship had come to deal with the written rather than the spoken word.
Hill defined rhetoric as "the art of efficient communication by" lan-
guage/'58 and although he does include the speaker as well as the
writer in his concept, the book is addressed to the writer, with not even
a discussion of "oratory" or public speaking in any form.

Part I of the book deals with "Composition in General/' and takes up
grammatical purity and choice of words. Part II deals with "Kinds of
Composition/' and takes up only three kinds: narrative, descriptive, and
argumentative. None of this material seems to offer the student any-
thing different from that found in Whately, Bair, and numerous other
sources which were available at the time.

The subject of "Persuasion" is disposed of by Hill in seven pages as
a subtopic of argumentative composition. To influence the "will/' Hill
said, it is necessary to influence the "active principles" of a man's
nature.59 He does not specify what these principles are, but recom-
mends one of two courses: we may "dwell upon topics which are likely
to call out the feelings" we wish to excite; or we may "express our own
feelings in such a way as to communicate them to others." 60 In connec-
tion with the latter method he quotes from Aristotle to stress the im-
portance of the speaker's reputation.

The Ele^nU ^of Rhetoric, by James De Mille, was published in 1882.
This isTSi imposing work of 564 £a^es, very similar in scope and method
to Hill's Principles of Rhetoric. Unlike Hill, however, De Mille includes
a bx|ef , discussion of oratory as one jof^tibe "General t>epartaienS^I)f
literature"; the six other departments being description, narration,
exposition, dialog^^^irama, and poetry.

The study of rhetoric, DeTWille said, "may be regarded as an ana-
lytical examination of literature." 61 Parts I, II, and III, comprising over
half the book, take up style. Part IV, "Method," is a treatment of inven-
tion, largely along Aristotelian lines. Part V discusses the "Emotions'*
under such headings as "The Beautiful/' "The Sublime/' and "The

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 143

Ridiculous." Part VI takes up the "Departments of Literature" referred
to above.

In the chapter dealing with oratory De Mille treats of the "Tactics of
Oratory," which probably represents his chief contribution. These
"tactics/' he said, may be defined as "special devices employed by ora-
tors for the sake of persuading their hearers." 62 The following tactics
are discussed: conciliation, emphasis, explanation, answers to objec-
tions, artifices, attack, defense, display of feeling. While this material
is drawn directly from Aristotle and Cicero, De Mille illustrates it with
examples drawn chiefly from British orators.63 The examples suggest a
fairly close acquaintanceship with Goodrich's Select British Eloquence.

The last major work of the century which attempted to present a
complete system of rhetoric was John Franklin Genung's The Practical
Elements of Rhetoric, published inTM6rHe"prepared a revision of the
wdrfc in 1900 which he called The Wdrking Principles of Rhetoric. An
examination of the two works, however, fails to reveal any significant
differences, and this discussion will deal only with the earlier work.

Like most of his contemporaries, Genung, who was Professor of
Rhetoric at Amherst College, had acc^tedAa^epaTation of voice and
delivery from rhetoric proper. Accordingly his book has two parts:

(3eames's, force, and beauty are the essential qualities of style. Its
controlling principle Genung draws from Herbert Spencer: "the central
principle of a good style lies in the economizing of the reader s atten-
tion." 64

Genung's treatment of invention, while essentially classical in con-
ception, represents a fairly original approach. He first discusses the
"Basis in Mental Aptitudes and Habits," pointing out that while inven-
tion is to some extent a natural gift, it can be cultivated by the develop-
ment of habits of "Observation," "Thought," and "Reading." 65

The "General Processes in the Ordering of Material" are considered
next under the headings of "Determination of the Theme," "Construc-
tion of the Plan," and "Amplification " 66

He then takes up Description, which he calls "Invention dealing with
Observed Objects"; Narration, "Invention dealing with Events"; Expo-
sition, "Invention dealing with Generalizations"; Argumentation, "In-
vention dealing with Truths"; and Persuasion, "Invention dealing with
Practical Issues." 67 In the first four of these divisions, Genung is ad-
dressing primarily the writer; and in the last division he is addressing the
speaker, for persuasion "is so predominantly the work of oral com-
munication," it "presupposes a speaker at close quarters with his
audience." 6S

Genung's development of the principles of persuasion, while again

144 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

classical in conception, rests upon the idea of Bain that to be a persua-
sive speaker, "it is necessary to have vividly present to the view all the
leading impulses and convictions of the persons addressed, and be
ready to catch at every point of identity between these and the propo-
sitions or projects presented for their adoption." 69 In addition to Bain?
Genung draws material from many of his contemporaries— notably
Emerson and Henry Ward Beecher.

The last work of the nineteenth century to be considered here is not
strictly speaking a treatise on rhetorical theory. The Principles of Pub-
lic Speaking, by Guy Carleton Lee, was published in 1899. It is probably
the first book by an American which could properly be called a "speech"
book in the modern sense. That is, it is primarily a book of advice and
suggestions on how to do such things as improve the voice, have better
bodily response, read aloud, prepare and deliver a speech, and take
part in a debate. There is a small amount of theory included, but for
the most part it is too fragmentary to be consistent.

While most of the material, particularly that dealing with voice and
gesture, would seem very artificial and impractical to the contemporary
student of speech, it is worth observing that by the end of the century
at least one professor of rhetoric had gathered together all the canons
of rhetoric and had attempted to formulate a consistent field of study
under the heading of "Public Speaking."

In conclusion, it may be said that while the nineteenth century did
not produce a notable advance in the theory of rhetoric, it did contrib-
ute some excellent restatements of the classical doctrines. The most
significant American contributions were probably the applications of
the principles of faculty psychology to rhetoric by such men as Good-
rich, Channing, Day, Hope, and Genung; and the application of the
principles of ethics to rhetoric by Shedd. The classical tradition of
rhetoric as a complete field of study including all the canons was repre-
sented in the century by Witherspoon, Adams, Porter, Goodrich, Chan-
ning, Shedd, Hope, and, to some extent, Emerson, Townsend, and Lee.
The principal writers who had accepted the separation of delivery from
the other canons and centered their attention on Invention and Style
were Knox, Newman, Boyd, Day, Bonnell, Hill, De Mille, and Genung.

A consideration of the development of rhetorical theory in the nine-
teenth century would not be complete without considering homiletics.
Many of the outstanding rhetoricians of the period— including men like
Witherspoon, Adams, Goodrich, Channing, and Porter— were also homi-
leticians. The definition of homiletics most widely accepted, further-

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 145

more, treated it as a special branch or application of rhetoric. Shedd,
for example, defined homiletics as "the term that has been chosen to
denote the application of the principles of rhetoric to preaching. It is
synonymous, consequently, with Sacred Rhetoric." 70 One major excep-
tion to this definition should be noted. George Hervey, in 1873, pub-
lished his very interesting System of Christian Rhetoric 71 in which he
constructed an elaborate system based solely on the Bible.

To give a detailed account of the treatment of each of the leading
figures of the century would not be practical for our present purpose.
Instead, the broad outlines of homiletical theory will be briefly sketched.

The purpose or goal of preaching underwent a definite change in the
course of the century. At the beginning of the century, conviction and
persuasion, considered as separate tasks, were quite commonly accepted
as the preacher's primary goal. Tappan, for example, regarded persua-
sion as the end of all preaching.72 John Q. Adams, on the other hand,
said that the "means" of the sermon "are persuasion; its object, to oper-
ate upon the will of the hearers; its results, to produce action." 73 In the
early years of the century, especially, there was a trend away from the
debate-brief type of sermon which stressed "conviction." Channing, for
example, stated that preachers "have addressed men as creatures of
mere intellect; they have forgotten that the affections are essential to
our nature, that reason and sensibility must operate together or we shall
never act with perseverance and vigor." 74 Porter also objected to the
debate-brief arrangement with its "applications," "uses," "propositions,"
"inferences," "counsels," and "reflections." That he was thinking in terms
of the traditional conviction-persuasion goal is indicated, however, by
his advocating the classical arrangement for the sermon: exordium,
proposition, division, discussion or argument, and conclusion.75

Early in the century, however, instruction as a goal or purpose in
preaching began to be emphasized. As early as 1800 Kirkland had stated
that instruction is the first branch of the preacher s task. What revela-
tion teaches concerning the origin, nature and destiny of man, that the
preacher must explain.76 Emmons expressed a growing belief when he
said that to preach is to instruct and to instruct is generally to explain.77
The controversy over doctrines, especially between the liberal and con-
servative Congregationalists, made it necessary for preachers to explain
these doctrines clearly, and probably gave added weight to instruction
as a goal.

Throughout the century doctrinal subjects were most universally in
demand. Witherspoon's Introductory Lectures on Divinity, for example,
take up the doctrine of the fall of man, sin, the covenant of grace, and
kindred subjects.78 Toward the end of the century a few authorities
were recommending practical or ethical subjects— foreshadowing the

146 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

twentieth-century concept that the minister should try to interpret the
social and ethical problems of the day in the light of Christian prin-
ciples. The great majority of authorities throughout the century, how-
ever, agreed with the statement of Edwards of Andover: "Sacred Elo-
quence is the art of speaking well on sacred subjects. These are subjects
which relate to God, to Jesus Christ, to the Holy Ghost, to the souls of
men, and to eternity/' 79

Most of the homileticians of this century discussed disposition as an
essential part of their complete systems. Witherspoon, in the early
period, had the most extensive discussion of it, pointing out that out-
lining is an aid to the memory as well as adding beauty, brevity, and
force to the sermon.80 Throughout the century, and particularly in the
latter half of it, the textual type of sermon was most widely used. A
representative statement of homiletic opinion is that of Spurgeon:
"Although in many cases topical sermons are . . . very proper, those ser-
mons which expound the exact words of the Holy Spirit are the most
useful and the most agreeable to the major part of our congregations." 81
Of disposition in this type of sermon, Pattison said, "The flavor of the
text is everywhere to be detected in the sermon, as the breath of the
pine forest is in every fir cone taken from it." S2 Analysis of the text to
find its exact meaning is the first step recommended, to be followed by
the formulation of a theme. Some authorities defined the theme as "the
discourse condensed," it being essentially the "germ" of the sermon.
Others agreed with Shedd that the theme is "an enunciation of the par-
ticular truth to be established in the sermon." 83 Division of the text or
theme is the next step generally recommended by homileticians for this
century. Divisions, said Hoppin, are "simply the different parts in which
the main subject is formally separated or discussed." 84 Kidder, for
example, quoted from Cicero, "It is chiefly order that gives distinctness
to memory" to prove that breaking up the theme helps both the preacher
and the listener to remember the sermon.85

The principles of division developed by the nineteenth-century homi-
leticians were in agreement with the ones developed by logicians: no
division should be coextensive with the subject; all together the divisions
should exhaust the proposition; a single principle of division should be
used.86

The nineteenth-century homileticians were much interested in the
problem of sermon style. The separation of delivery from the aspects of
invention, disposition, and style, which was going on at the beginning
of the century probably contributed to this interest. The major writers
of the period agreed with Channing that the sermon "must not be set
forth and tricked out in the light drapery of artificial rhetoric, in pretti-
ness of style, in measured sentences, with an insipid floridness, and the

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 147

form of elegantly feeble essays." 87 Witherspoon, of the early writers,
offered the most complete discussion of style, devoting five chapters to
the three forms of style: the sublime, simple, and mixed.

The different interpretations of the meaning of style found among
secular rhetoricians is also encountered among the homileticians. Hop-
pin, Etter, Fisk, and a few others held the position that the term "style"
includes both the thought and its expression: "Style is the general term
by which we designate the qualities of thought as expressed in lan-
guage." 8S Most authorities in this century, however, followed the clas-
sical doctrine which makes "style" much the same as "use of language."
Broadus' statement is representative of this group: "A man's style, then,
is his characteristic manner of expressing his thoughts, whether in writ-
ing or in speech." 89 Indicative of the emphasis placed on style is the
further statement by Broadus that style "is the glitter and polish of the
warrior's sword, but it is also its keen edge. It can render mediocrity
acceptable and even attractive, and power more powerful still, It can
make error seductive, while truth may lie unnoticed for want of its
aid." 90 Probably the outstanding treatment of style in the latter part of
the century was that of Phelps. His English Style in Public Discourse,
devoted especially to pulpit style, was widely accepted and used toward
the end of the century. Phelps listed seven properties of good style:
purity, meaning grammatical correctness; precision, which he distin-
guished from propriety (or purity) by saying: "Propriety is satisfied if
we write good English: precision demands such a choice of good Eng-
lish as shall express our meaning"; 91 individuality; perspicuity; energy;
elegance, which was synonymous with "beauty"; 92 and naturalness, by
which he meant "fitness"; and made the point that style should fit the
subject, the audience, and the occasion.

Bowling 93 and Taylor,94 writing in the middle part, and Hervey 95
in the latter part of the century, presented detailed discussions of the
value and technique of illustrative preaching, Dowling's The Power of
Illustration is a short book containing excellent examples of illustrations
of all kinds. It had wide use and probably added impetus to the trend
toward expository preaching mentioned previously. "The great advan-
tages," said Dowling, "resulting from the use of striking and vivid illus-
trations, are, that they serve (1) to attract and secure attention; (2) to
afford scope for copiousness and variety, in the exhibition of truths
which have long been familiar; (3) to impress the memory by their
point and force; and (4) to render complex and difficult subjects easy
and plain." 96

Of all the canons of rhetoric, delivery received probably the greatest
attention from homileticians during the nineteenth century. A few of
them, including such leaders as Porter,97 Ware,98 and Russell 99 wrote

148 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

texts wliicli dealt exclusively with the delivery aspects of preaching. In
general, the writers agreed that sincerity and naturalness were the pri-
mary requirements. Witherspoon advised his students to "study great
sincerity, try to forget every purpose but the very end of speaking infor-
mation and persuasion." 10° Dwight summarized his advice on delivery
by saying, "To preach acceptably demands all the characteristics already
insisted upon in this discourse; plainness, variety, boldness, solemnity,
earnestness, and affection." 101

From the beginning of the century, writers were pointing out the
stiffness and artificiality both in style and delivery brought about in
part at least by the practice of reading sermons. Griffin, for example,
felt that this "abuse" was introduced by "the practice of writing ser-
mons. The natural manner in which man addresses man is that which
prevails in conversation and in more animated forms of speech without
writing/' 102 Some of the earlier writers advocated extemporaneous
speaking as a remedy for this defect. Many, however, were slow to
accept this change. John Q. Adams was representative of those who took
a middle ground. He recognized that extemporized preaching may con-
tain more warmth, earnestness, and force; but, he warned, "the stream
which flows spontaneously, is almost always shallow, and runs forever
in the same channel." 103 And as late as 1898, Thomas Pattison sounded
much the same warning: "Undoubtedly extemporaneous speech is the
highest form of address. But let us beware before we adopt it as our
constant practice. The heights to which this method lifts us may usually
be very lofty, but the depth to which it sometimes sinks are well-nigh
unfathomable." 104 In 1824, however, Henry Ware published his Hints
on Extemporaneous Preaching., and most authorities from that time
accepted the belief that extempore delivery is, for most people, the most
desirable. Ware emphasized earnestness as the central problem for
effective delivery. Animation of manner, he said, will come if the
speaker is fully imbued with his subject. There will be "more of the
lighting up of the soul in the countenance and the whole mein, more
freedom and meaning in the gestures; the eye speaks, and the fingers
speak, and when the orator is so excited as to forget everything but the
matter on which his mind and feeling are acting, the whole body is
affected and helps to propagate his emotions to the hearers." 105

Porter's Analysis of the Principles of Rhetorical Delivery and Russell's
Pulpit Elo,cution are probably the most outstanding contributions by
homileticians to the new science of elocution. Although most writers
preferred to leave the actual teaching of elocution to the professional
elocutionists, they agreed with Broadus that speech exists only in the
act of speaking, and the sermon cannot be separated from its de-
livery.106 By the middle of the century, it was commonly agreed that

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 149

the voice can and should be developed and improved. As Kidder
observed, "It is a very inconsistent philosophy which would educate the
eye, the ear, the hand, and the brain, and yet refuse culture and train-
ing to the voice." 107

Homiletical theory in America received a rapid and full development
in the nineteenth century. Starting almost from scratch at the opening
of t£? century, the groundwork laid by men like John Witherspoon and
John Quincy Adams was rapidly developed by such scholars and teach-
ers as William Ellery Channing, Henry Ware, Ebenezer Porter, Henry
J. Ripley, William Taylor, John Dowling, George Hervey, William Rus-
sell, James Alexander, John Broadus, James Hoppin, Daniel Kidder,
Austin Phelps, and William G. T. Shedd. The application of the prin-
ciples of rhetoric to the art of preaching may be said to have been com-
pleted" by tEe end, of the century. The major development of the
twenfieOTcentury, a trend which was just beginning at the close of the
nineteenth, has been the changing conception of the purpose and func-
tion of preaching. To the hojnileticians of . the last century, the preacher
was an inspired individual whose function was primarily to interpret
f orTSTcongregation the Bible and the Church, with man's salvation as
the-grat Iirthfp^esefiJ: .century, this viewpoint., while it still exists, has
slo^y*given way to the conception of preaching as an interpretation by
the minister of his congregation's social and ethical problems in the
light 7>I Christian principles.

Notes

1. John Witherspoon, Lectures on Moral Philosophy and Eloquence, 3rd ed.
(Philadelphia, 1810), pp. 150-154. See also John P. Hoshor, "Lectures on Rhetoric
and Public Speaking by Chauncey Allen Goodrich/* Speech Monographs, XIV
(1947), 5-8.

2. Witherspoon, pp. 233-234.

3. John Q. Adams, Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory (Cambridge, 1810), I,
253-254, and III, 317-319.

4. Ibid., I, 14.

5. Ibid., I, 230.

6. A Compendious System of Rhetoric (Baltimore, 1809), p. 3.

7. A Practical System of Rhetoric (Portland, 1827), p. 1.

8. Ebenezer Porter, Lectures on Eloquence and Style, ed. Rev. Lyman Mat-
thews (Andover, 1836).

9. Hoshor, p. 5.

10. Ibid., p. 5.

11. Ibid., p. 30.

12. See the unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Iowa, 1947) by John P. Hoshor,
"The Rhetorical Theory of Chauncey Allen Goodrich," p. 110.

13. Ibid., pp. 51-71.

14. Chauncey Allen Goodrich, Select British Eloquence (New York, 1852), p.
209.

15. In 1846 and 1847, Goodrich revised both the unabridged and the abridged
editions of Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language. To his 1856 revi-

150 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

sion of the University edition of the same work he added an exhaustive treatise on
the principles of pronunciation.

16. Hoshor, p. 110.

17. Ibid., p. 129.

18. Edward T. Channing, Lectures Read to the Seniors in Harvard College
(Boston, 1856), p. 31.

19. Ibid., p. 41.

20. Ibid., p. 35-40.

21. Ibid., p. 203-204.

22. Edward T. Channing, "Philosophical Essays. By James Ogilvie," North
American Review, IV (March, 1817), 385, 386. See also Channing, Lectures, p. 31.

23. Channing, Lectures, p. 17.

24. Ibid., p. 20.

25. Orators Guide (Philadelphia, 1822), p. 5.

26. Ibid., p. 22.

27. Elements of Rhetoric and Literary Criticism, 6th ed. (New York, 1848),
p, ix.

28. Ibid., p. x.

29. William G. T. Shedd, trans. Eloquence A Virtue; or, Outlines of a Sys-
tematic Rhetoric, by Francis Theremin (New York, 1850), p. viii.

30. Ibid., p. TOX.

31. Eloquence a Virtue, p. 69.

32. Ibid.f p. 71.

33. In Discourses and Essays (Andover, 1859), p. 91.

34. Ibid., p. 92.

35. P. lii.

36. The Art of Discourse: A System of Rhetoric, 10th ed. (New York, 1867),
p. 4.

37. Ibid., p. 14.

38. Ibid.9 p. 41.

39. Ibid.9 p. 49.

40. Day, Elements, pp. 165-289.

41. Princeton Textbook in Rhetoric (Princeton, 1859), p. iv.

42. Ibid.9 p. 2.

43. Ibid.9 p. 84,
-44. Ibid.9 p. 2.

45. Ibid.9 p. 289.

46. In Emerson s Complete Works, Riverside ed. (Boston, 1875), VIII, 126.

47. Ibid., VII, 63.

48. Ibid., p. 67.

49. Ibid.9 p. 68.

50. Ibid.9 p. 85.

51. Ibid.9 p. 88.

52. Ibid., p. 89.

53. Ibid.9 p. 91.

54. The Outlines of Rhetoric (Rochester, New York, 1877), p. 3.

55. The Art of Speech (New York, 1880), I, 34.

56. Ibid.9 II, 13.

57. Rhetoric as an Art of Persuasion (Des Moines, Iowa, 1880), p. 45.

58. Principles of Rhetoric (New York, 1889), p. in.

59. Ibid., p. 237.

60. Ibid.9 p. 240.

61. The Elements of Rhetoric (New York, 1882), p. vi.

62. lbid.9 p. 76.

63. Ibid.9 p. 485-503.

64. Practical Elements of Rhetoric (New York, 1886), pp. 19-27.

65. Ibid., pp. 220-235.

AMERICAN CONTRIBUTIONS 151

66. Ibid., pp. 248-302.

67. Ibid., pp. 326-476.

68. Ibid., p. 449.

69. Ibid., p. 448.

70. Homiletics and Pastoral Theology (New York, 1867), p. 38.

71. (New York, 1873).

72. David N. Tappan, "A Sermon delivered at Kennebunk, September 3, 1800
at the Ordination of Reverend Nathaniel Fletcher," in Waterman Pamphlets, Vol.
128, Library of Congress.

73. Adams, Lectures, p. 330.

74. William Ellery Channing, "A Sermon Delivered at the Ordination of the

Reverend Ezra Stiles Gannett June 30, 1815," in Waterman Pamphlets, Vol. 3,

Library of Congress, p. 19.

75. Ebenezer Porter, Lectures on Homiletics and Preaching, and on Public
Prayer, Together with Sermons and Letters (New York, 1834), p. 116.

76. John Kirkland, A Sermon Preached at Taunton, January 5, 1 800, at the
Ordination of the Reverend John Pipon. . . . ( Cambridge, 1800 ) , p. 7.

77. Nathaniel F. Emmons, A Sermon Delivered at the Ordination of the Rev-
erend John Robinson. . . .January 14, 1789 (Providence, 1789), p. 4.

78. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon, ed. John
Rodgers, III, 62 ff.

79. Justin Edwards, "An Address on Pulpit Eloquence," in Henry Burder,
Mental Discipline (New York, 1830), p. 186.

80. Witherspoon, Works, pp. 443-446.

81. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (London, 1875),
p. 112.

82. Thomas Harwood Pattison, The Making of the Sermon, For the Classroom
and the Study (Philadelphia, 1880), p. 65.

83. Shedd, Homiletics, p. 183.

84. James M. Hoppin, Homiletics (New York, 1883), p 382.

85. Daniel P. Kidder, A Treatise on Homiletics, Designed to Illustrate the True
Theory and Practice of Preaching the Gospel (New York, 1864), p. 215.

86. See the following: John A. Broadus, A Treatise on the Preparation and
Delivery of Sermons, 30th ed. (New York, 1898), p. 288; Kidder, Treatise on
Homiletics, p. 200; Hoppin, Hormletics, p. 389; Austin Phelps, The Theory of
Preaching (New York, 1905), p. 391, John W. Etter, The Preacher and His Ser-
mon, A Treatise on Homiletics (Dayton, Ohio, 1885), p. 192.

87. William Ellery Channing, A Sermon Delivered at the Ordination of the
Reverend Ezra Stiles Gannett June 30th, 1824 (Boston, 1824), p. 13.

88. Hoppin, Homiletics, p. 2.

89. Broadus, Treatise, p. 340.

90. Ibid., p. 342.

91. Austin Phelps, English Style in Public Discourse, with Special Reference
to the Usages of the Pulpit (New York, 1915), p. 79.

92. Ibid., pp. 6, 126-128, 202-217.

93. John Dowling, The Power of Illustration an Element of Success in Preach-
ing and Teaching, 2d ed. (New York, 1847).

94. William Taylor, The Model Preacher (Cincinnati, 1859).

95. George W. Harvey, A System of Christian Rhetoric for the Use of Preach-
ers and Other Speakers (New York, 1873).

96. Dowling, Power of Illustration, pp. 12-13.

97. Ebenezer Porter, Analysis of the Principles of Rhetorical Delivery as
Applied to Reading and Speaking, 4th ed. ( New York, 1831 ).

98. Henry Ware, Hints on Extemporaneous Preaching (Boston, 1824).

99. William Russell, Pulpit Elocution (Andover, 1846).
100. Witherspoon, Works, p. 455.

152 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

101. Timothy Dwight, "Sermon CLIIL The Means of Grace— Extraordinary
Means o£ Grace— The Manner of Preaching," in Timothy Dwight, Theology Ex-
plained (Edinburgh, 1837), p. 798,

102. Edward Griffin, A Sermon on the Art of Preaching, Delivered Before the
Pastoral Association of Massachusetts (Boston, 1825), p. 26.

103. Adams, Lectures, p. 341.

104. Pattison, Making of the Sermon, p. 326.

105. Ware, Extemporaneous Preaching, p. 6.

106. Broadus, Treatise, p. 480.

107. Kidder, Treatise on Homilectics, p. 330.

/ Rhetorical and Elocutionary Training in
Nineteenth-Century Colleges

MARIE HOCHMUTH
RICHARD MURPHY

On December 8, 1819, Edward T. Charming, on being inducted into
the Boylston Professorship of Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard Univer-
sity, observed: "It is the spirit of the age to turn everything to account,
and to let no good learning remain idle. How is it that eloquence has
gone behind-hand?" l At that time, Channing had the distinction of be-
ing one of the few men in American colleges who were engaged solely
to give rhetorical training. To understand Channing's lament, one must
survey what had gone on in American Colleges before 1819.

In the eighteenth century, training in rhetoric and oratory at Harvard,
and most colleges, had been provided not by one instructor especially
selected for the work, but by the incidental direction of tutors giving
instruction in a variety of subjects. There had been distinguished men
in the eighteenth century who gave serious if not exclusive attention to
rhetoric, but they were the exception to the rule. John Witherspoon had
attempted systematic training at Princeton; 2 Timothy Dwight, long
interested in the literary life of the country, incited interest in rhetoric
at Yale, even as a tutor. By his "example and his instructions," he pro-
duced a "great reform in the style of writing and speaking/' 3 He deliv-
ered to the students a series of lectures on style and composition, "on a
plan very similar to that contained in Blair's lectures, which were not
published until a considerable time afterward." 4 About 1770, "the art
of public speaking began for the first time in the history of the college
to be excited." Dwight continued his instruction after he became presi-
dent of Yale in 1795. The job of giving rhetorical training to students
frequently was one of the miscellaneous duties college presidents
assumed.

153

154 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Students seemed to desire rhetorical activity other than that provided
by the system of syllogizing, disputation, and declamation that had
been part of college training from the beginning in America. As early
as 1719, the Spy Club was formed at Harvard and students instructed
themselves in the art of discourse. Yale and Princeton soon followed
with similar societies— the Critonian, Linonian, and Brothers in Unity at
Yale, and the American Whig at Princeton. In 1770, Harvard students
formed a speaking Club. There had been, they claimed, a "cold indif-
ference to the practice of oratory." 5 But following the Boston Massacre
there was a "feast of patriotic oratory"; 6 declamations and forensic
disputes breathed "the spirit of liberty." 7

Following the American Revolution, in 1798, Harvard students having
become "exceedingly interested in the grave questions then before the
country" sought college "sanction" for a meeting designed for the "pur-
pose of expressing their opinions on the then existing crisis of our
public affairs." 8 "Though removed from active life," they "watched
with anxiety the interests of our country" and through public address
solemnly offered "the unwasted ardor and unimpaired energies of our
youth to the service of our country." 9 Financial difficulties in the col-
leges prevented adjustment of the curriculum to student interests in
post-Revolution days, although college authorities realized the need for
reorganization and adjustment to a new era. "College was never in a
worse state than when I entered it," noted a student of the Class of
1798 at Harvard. ccThe old foundations of social order, loyalty, tradition,
habits, reverence for antiquity, were everywhere shaken, if not sub-
verted. . . . The old forms were outgrown, and new ones had not taken

their place The system of government and instruction went on very

much as it had done for years before, and the result was a state of great
insubordination " 10

But a new culture was in the making, a culture that was to promote
literary independence as well as political independence, and colleges
were soon to adjust to the change. "It is high time that the young Hercu-
les, who has strangled the serpents, should go forth in the plentitude of
muscular force, and perform the mighty labors assigned him," wrote a
young American college graduate while traveling in Europe in 1803.
"American literature ought to bud, it ought to promise future fruits of
Hesperian luxuriance." ia In 1803, New England promulgated its first
literary magazine, the Monthly Anthology; in 1815, it launched the
North American Review. In the same year, two native sons, George
Ticknor and Edward Everett started their wanderjahre in Germany,
seeking inspiration and learning which were later to help stimulate the
development of American letters. In 1803, the Monthly Anthology
noted: "The fine arts, in America, have not made a very rapid progress,

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 155

nor is their establishment very great in any particular State ... it is our

ardent desire to promote their progress among us " 12 Its second

issue defined the ideals for eloquence: "Eloquence is not an introduc-
tory science, which youth can be taught from books. It is the glorious
talent of improving all the treasures of art and of science, of history and
of nature to the illumination, conviction and subjugation of the hearts
of men. It is the dome of the temple, the perfection of human powers,
the action of mind on mind, the lightening of the moral world." 13 In
1810, when John Quincy Adams published his Lectures on Rhetoric and
Oratory, he did so with "an undoubting confidence that they will do
good. They will excite the genius, stimulate the literary ambition, and
improve the taste of the rising generation/' 14 He wrote to improve the
art of the forum, the art of the lawyer, the art of letters, in addition to
the art of the pulpit.

The published lectures of Adams were a high point in the history of
American rhetorical theory. They were made by the occupant of the
first Chair of Rhetoric and Oratory in the country. The history of its
establishment reveals in concrete form transitional elements from the
eighteenth century and the nineteenth century. It was in 1771 that the
will of Nicholas Boylston, wealthy benefactor of Harvard, revealed
the possibility of a chair in rhetoric and oratory: "I give & bequeath unto
the President & Fellows of Harvard College in Cambridge in the County
of Middlesex the sum of one thousand five hundred Pounds lawfull
money . . . toward the Support and Maintenance of some well Qualified
Person who shall be elected by the President and Fellows of said College
for the time being and approved of by the Overseers of said College to be

the Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory " 15 But thirty years passed

and nothing was done about the bequest. When suit by the heirs was
threatened for the recovery of the grant,16 Harvard bestirred itself. On
June 24, 1805, the Corporation unanimously elected the Honorable John
Quincy Adams, relative of the donor, United States Senator, and promis-
ing literary man, who was to become the sixth president of the United
States, to the first Professorship. He gave his first lecture July 11, 1806
and noted in his diary: "I this day commenced my course of lectures on
rhetoric and oratory,— an undertaking of magnitude and importance. . . .
My lecture was well received, and could I hope that the issue of the
whole course would bear a proportion to the effect of this introduction,
I should be fully satisfied." 1T For the next three years during term,
Adams appeared at ten o'clock on Friday mornings to deliver a lecture
on rhetoric and at two o'clock in the afternoons to preside over student
declamations.18

"A subject, which has exhausted the genius of Aristotle, Cicero, and
Quintilian, can neither require nor admit much additional illustra-

156 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

tion," 10 observed Adams in his Inaugural lecture. Accordingly, the first
American professor of rhetoric and oratory drew heavily upon the clas-
sical tradition. Many later practitioners in the nineteenth century fol-
lowed his example, but there was a variety of systems. The^ stream of
rhetorical and elocutionary training in the nineteenth century needs
detailed charting. Through the age, now swift flowing, now quiescent,
continued the main channel of classical rhetoric. Many tributaries fed
it and at times, indeed, rivaled the main stream in size and momentum
—the science of voice, the quasi-scientific elocutionary system, the com-
bination of muscle and vocal rhythm in Delsartian systems. At times
the course was narrowed to make way for an expanding curriculum and
social life, for journalism, the sciences, the fraternity and athletics. But
the stream flowed on, and gathering volume and momentum, at the
end of the century cascaded into what we now know as the modern
department of speech. It is convenient to chart this movement in periods
of quarter centuries.

1800-1825

On the surface, rhetorical training in the first quarter of the nine-
teenth century did not seem to differ materially from what had been
the vogue in the late eighteenth century. At Yale, Freshmen received
training in Cicero's De Oratore and Sophomores studied Lindley Mur-
ray's English Grammar. All the students, regardless of class, were re-
quired in daily rotation to "exhibit" compositions of various kinds, and
submit them to the instructor's criticism. Meeting in units of four, they
declaimed, publicly and privately, on Tuesdays and Fridays, in English,
Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; when required, each had to hand in a copy
of his declamation "fairly written." Seniors and Juniors also disputed
forensically before the class, twice a week, on a question approved by
the instructor; when the disputants had finished, the instructor dis-
cussed the matter at length, giving his own views on the problems and
on the arguments of both sides. One student assured his parents that all
the disputes and compositions required "a great deal of hard thinking
and also close application." 20 Programs at the other colleges were
strikingly similar. Yale may have been a bit more fortunate than most
schools in having Timothy Dwight, the president, handle the rhetorical
training for Seniors. "Intellectually, the Senior year was the best to me,"
observed Lyman Beecher, a student during Dwight's first years in the
presidency. "We all looked forward to Dr. Dwight's instructions with
interest. We began with Blair's Rhetoric, half an hour's recitation, and
an hour or hour and a half of extempore lecture On two other days

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLLEGES 157

we had written or extempore debates before Dr. Dwight, he summing
up at the close/' 21 Subjects of the debates were varied: "Ought Capital
Punishment ever to be inflicted?" "Ought Foreign Immigration to be
encouraged?" "Ought the Liberty of the Press to be restricted?" "Does
the Mind always Think?" "Is a Public Education preferable to a pri-
vate?" "Which have the greatest influence in Forming a National Char-
acter, Moral or Physical Causes?" "Ought the Clergy to be supported by
Law?" Dwight obviously encouraged free discussion, even permitting
the students to dispute the question, "Is the Bible the Word of God?"
As one studies the record of the disputations, he notes attention to cor-
rectness of diction, pronunciation, soundness of argument, and judg-
ment.22 Commencement programs in the early years of the century
abounded in forensic disputations, orations, dissertations, deliberative
discussions, essays, and colloquies,23 as they had done for years before.
Whereas the system seemed about the same as it was in the eigh-
teenth century, there were, in fact, differences in goals and ends. Not
only were colleges being pressed to train for professions other than the
clergy for which the early system of rhetorical training was designed,
but the clergy itself had begun to demand a new kind of training.
"American rhetoric" in 1785 was "closely allied with oratory," observes
Warren Guthrie, "but gradually moved more and more into the realm
of composition and criticism— belles lettres." 24 Students had always
been required to write as a basis for oratorical training. One must
remember that a year before John Quincy Adams became Professor of
Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard, a Unitarian, Henry Ware, had been
elected Hollis Professor of Divinity,25 and New England churches be-
gan to fill their pulpits with 'liberal" ministers. In 1810, John Kirkland,
a Unitarian, became president of Harvard. Unitarians shifted the em-
phasis in sermonizing away from the rigidly logical sermon, for which
disputations had been excellent training, to the "literary sermon." 26
Sermons began to be praised for their grace and beauty, and criticized
for an absence of "sound doctrine." Men like Joseph Buckminster, Ed-
ward Everett, and William Ellery Channing, superbly graceful writers
and speakers, were occupying the pulpits, and crowds were respond-
ing to the new aesthetic appeal, even as the old line Calvinists were
readying themselves for attack both on the new theology and the new
method of sermonizing. Although Lyman Beecher believed that "the
plain, simple, energetic, argumentative style of New England preach-
ing . . . admits of becoming the best pulpit style in the world," even he,
in 1820, was forced "for the sake of maintaining our ground" to go "as
far as I could go to satisfy by popular oratory those who would be
formed on a worse model. . . ." 2r "Time was, when the good people of
this land retired silently from the sanctuary, saying little of the sermon,

158 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and more of the duty of improving it," noted a critic of New England
preaching during the period. "But now., sermons have their day. In
some of our cities and villages, it has become a point of etiquette to
talk about them,— to descant on their merits and defects,— to point out

the beautiful passages and the bad " "Like the last tale or poem/'

the sermon was "talked about" and it became "just as useless, as a 'tale
that is told/ " 28 Sermons had clearly become "literary efforts" and were
thought of as artistic productions, quite as much as were the essays in
the Monthly Anthology or the North American Review. Eclectic in their
ministerial training, many of the young clergymen were united in their
enthusiasm for literature and literary study. Through their preaching
they were trying to bring about new American ideals and were exempli-
fying habits of preaching and writing quite different from those of the
eighteenth century.

It is not so much that rhetorical training was moving in the direction
of written composition (for rhetorical training had always been allied
with both speaking and writing), but that a new type of training had
become necessary even for the sermon. "If we wished to impoverish a
man's intellect/' wrote the popular William Ellery Channing, brother
of the Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory, "we could devise
few means more effectual, than to confine him to what is called a course
of theological reading." 29 In his own preparation, he strayed from con-
ventional methods, proclaiming "I am now totally immersed in litera-
ture. I have settled a course of reading for three years. . . /' 30 Whereas
oratory was being forced to give way to other types of literary art, the
oration itself began to change its form and would soon appear as the
"lecture."

The textbook most widely used for rhetorical training at the opening
of the century and continuing for more than a quarter of a century
thereafter was Hugh Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres.
Published in 1783, it was ordered by Brown University college library
in the same year and adopted by Yale as a text in 1785 and by Harvard
in 1788. By 1803 it was the "most popular rhetorical work in the col-
leges." 31 Steeped in the classical tradition, Blair, nevertheless, did not
consider rhetoric merely to be concerned with oral persuasion, "To
speak or to write perspicuously and agreeably, with purity, with grace
and strength, are attainments of the utmost consequence to all who pro-
pose, either by speech or writing, to address the public." 32 Blair who
"would stop hounds by his eloquence" 33 was a Scottish minister whose
published Sermons were "elegant and perspicuous discourses/' 34: A
country becoming increasingly self-conscious about its literature and a
clergy moving rapidly away from old methods of sermonizing found
Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres well adapted to their

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 159

needs. "The study of composition, important in itself at all times, has
acquired additional importance from the taste and manners of the
present age," noted Blair. "It is an age wherein improvements, in every
part of science, have been prosecuted with ardour. To all the liberal
arts much attention has been paid; and to none more than to the beauty
of language, and the grace and elegance of every kind of writing. The
public ear is become refined. It will not easily bear what is slovenly and
incorrect. Every author must aspire to some merit in expression, as well
as in sentiment, if he would not incur the danger of being neglected
and despised." 35 To Blair, the study of Rhetoric and Belles Lettres pre-
supposes and requires a proper acquaintance with the rest of the liberal
arts. "It embraces them all within its circle, and recommends them to
the highest regard." 36 Blair concerned himself not only with instruc-
tions in speech-making but with instructions for historical writing,
philosophical writing, and poetry, including the lyric, the epic, tragic
drama, and comedy.

Supplementing the rhetorical program in most of the colleges at the
beginning of the nineteenth century was a strongly classical program. It
normally included logic, and the study of Greek and Latin. In the pro-
gram usually were Cicero's and Demosthenes' orations, Cicero's De
Oratore and Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory, although the latter was
not available in "numbers sufficient to supply a Class" 37 in some col-
leges. The pattern of rhetorical training was similar in colleges through-
out the country. Newly organized schools tended to draw their inspira-
tion, their plans, and their instructors and presidents from the older
colleges.38

Still, in 1819, at the beginning of Channing's long incumbency, there
was dissatisfaction with rhetorical training, despite the fact that it was
becoming more systematized than it had earlier been. By 1824, Brown,
Yale, and Bowdoin had followed Harvard in establishing chairs of
rhetoric. The textbooks and methods employed in teaching rhetoric
threw emphasis on theory, with little distinction between the art of the
speaker and the art of the writer. The public looked upon exhibitions of
student speaking and found them not much better than they had been.
"A branch of instruction which has been shamefully neglected (the
word, I own, is a harsh one)," noted William Tudor, traveler and ob-
server of a Harvard Commencement program, "has been oratory,— or
rather, elocution. Every person who has attended a college exhibition,
would see, with disgust, more than half the exhibiters speak their parts
in such a slovenly, awkward manner, as would not have been tolerated
in a village school. . . . There is a professorship of rhetoric and oratory,
—but its principal duties are the instruction in the former, in the forma-
tion of style and the theory of speaking." 39

160 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Occasionally the teachers were blamed for the deficiencies. Both their
methods and their emphasis were found to be at fault. "As for oratory,
Mr. Channing's professorship was a sinecure/' noted one of his students.
"He had, as a speaker, no grace, nor any great diversity of modulation;
and his gestures were awkward, seeming to denote rather his discom-
fort at being obliged to speak than the mood of thought or feeling to
which he gave expression." 40 Channing conducted public declamations
in the college chapel once a fortnight, with the whole Senior class
obliged to attend. A certain number in their turn, according to alpha-
betical order repeated "with such show of oratory as they could sev-
erally command, pieces of their own choice in poetry or prose, oftener
in poetry." Channing "listened attentively to these declamations, and
marked them ... on a scale of twenty-four; but he never made any com-
ment, unless it were to rebuke the choice of a piece offensively coarse,
or some outrageous grotesqueness in delivery/7 41 Of the Boylston Pro-
fessor of Rhetoric, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

Channing, with his bland, superior look,
Cold as a moonbeam on a frozen brook. . . .42

Channing was rather obviously more concerned with developing the
literary life of New England than in giving individual training in oral
expression. He had little equipment and training for aiding students to
remedy vocal deficiencies. He could help them write orations and other
literary forms, but he apparently had little expertness in helping the
students to speak with vocal perfection. "I am inclined to consider
rhetoric when reduced to a system in books, as a body of rules derived
from experience and observation, extending to all communication by
language and designed to make it efficient," Channing observed in his
lectures to the students. "It does not ask whether a man is to be a
speaker or writer,-a poet, philosopher, or debater; but simply ,— is it his
wish to be put in the right way of communicating his mind with power
to others, by words spoken or written." 43 Like his predecessors John
Quincy Adams, and Joseph McKean, Channing leaned heavily upon the
ancients. Precepts for voice training and elocutionary skill had not been
detailed by the ancients, and Channing did not supply the deficiency
to any great extent44

Rhetorical and elocutionary training in the first quarter of the nine-
teenth century was built upon the habits of disputation and declama-
tion prominent the century before. But there were two notable expan-
sions. One came in the establishment of chairs of rhetoric, giving to the
field a status in the curriculum. The other change was the attention
given to developing the literary background of the orator with the pur-
pose of making htm more perspicuous and more perspicacious. But

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLLEGES 161

deficiencies in platform skill, in management of the voice and in general
delivery, were apparent. In the next quarter century, training in voice
and general elocutionary skills were accentuated to remedy the defects,

III

1825-1850

"The tongue or voyce is praise-worthie . . .," thought a contributor to
the New England Magazine in 1832, as he voiced his complaint against
the delivery of preachers and public men, urging that the colleges take
notice. "It is but recently that they have given much attention to the
subject of Eloquence, or elocution, as a science to be taught," he ob-
served. "But the day is coming, and even now is, when a different
course must be adopted. A taste for polite literature and the fine arts
is becoming too general among the population of the country to allow
the colleges to send forth their annual hosts of graduates for the pulpits
and the forum, untaught in the most important accomplishment of a
public man, without severe rebuke. Yale has already done something
for improvement in the art of speaking; and Harvard,— good old dull
and sleepy matron, is just awaking, and rubbing her eyes, and perceives
the necessity of doing a little to stop the public clamor, and shield her
alumni from the reproaches of common school-boys." 45 Complaints
about the poor rendition of orations, debates, and disputations at exhibi-
tions and commencements had been frequent for many years. People
were sometimes amused at the "seeming torture" to which the human
body could be put "without stretching it on the rack," 4G and oc-
casionally reported on delivery that "would have done honor to an
Aboriginal Sachem. . . ." 4T As manners in general became more re-
fined, more and more pressure was put upon the schools to pay atten-
tion to the rendition of orations, debates, and declamations. Improved
taste in composition was not enough. Then, too, a dying Calvinism was
seeking to regain its losses by invigorating its preaching, and called
upon the schools to aid in this task. "I must say I have been troubled at
the complaints which have been made at the want of animation of the
Andover students, and of the impression beginning to be made in favor
of Princeton," wrote the Reverend Lyman Beecher to authorities at
Andover, training ground for Calvinists after Harvard's adoption of
Unitarianism. "I say, therefore, that you must remedy the defect, so far
as it is positive. Your preachers must wake up, and lift up their voice.
They must get their mouths open, and their lungs in vehement action,
there in your little chapel, and, if need be, start the glass, and heave the
swelling sides, and tear passion to a tatters." 4S

The criticism of the public performances of clergymen, lawyers, and

162 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

men in public affairs, that now went on in America, had its counterpart
in England a generation before. There the fifth of the classical canons
of rhetoric had been isolated for special attention in the last half of the
eighteenth century. A flood of essays and books on elocution had ensued.
The elocutionary writings of Thomas Sheridan, James Burgh, John
Walker, Joshua Steele, and Gilbert Austin were exported to America,
were available in libraries, and were sometimes consulted by students
in preparation of their declamations. By 1824, the Reverend Ebenezer
Porter, who became Bartlett Professor of Pulpit Eloquence at Andover
in 1811, published his own text, Lectures on the Analysis of Vocal In-
flection, one of the earliest American discussions of vocal delivery. In
1827, he published An Analysis of the Principle of Rhetorical Delivery,
and in 1831, his Rhetorical Reader, a practical textbook, the popularity
of which is reflected in the fact that by 1858 it reached its three hun-
dredth printing.

Gradually elocutionary training became separated from rhetorical
training. By 1828, colleges such as Colby, Middlebury, South Carolina,
and Yale, in assigning Richard Whately's Rhetoric specified "except
Part IV," 49 the section which dealt with "Elocution, or Delivery." Such
an exclusion suggests that elocutionary training was being thought of
as a separate discipline. About 1823, Jonathan B arbour, a disciple of
the English writer, Joshua Steele, author of Prosodia Rationalis, came
to America.50 By 1830, he was at least unofficially connected with Yale,
and offering elocutionary training, as the title of his book published in
1830 indicates: A Grammar of Elocution: Containing the Principles of
the Arts of Reading and Speaking: Illustrated by Appropriate Exercises
and Examples, Adapted to Colleges, Schools, and Private Instruction:
The Whole Arranged in the Order in Which It is Taught in "Yale Col-
lege.^ The separation of rhetoric and elocution is clearly manifested in
1830 with the official appointment of Erasmus D. North as Instructor
in Elocution at Yale.52 Jonathan Barbour was hired by Harvard
University in 1830 to supplement the work in rhetoric by giving spe-
cial attention to elocution, being the "first professedly scientific teacher
of elocution employed in Harvard College/'53 Barbour lost little time
after coming to America in associating himself with American physi-
cians, one of whom was James Rush who, in 1827, published The
Philosophy of the Human Voice.54 The book, intended for physicians,
found its place among persons who had become increasingly interested
in the special problems of the voice and in vocal presentation. Barbour
was among those, having become acquainted with the contents of the
book even before it was published.55

Wendell Phillips, eminent American orator, was a student of Barbour
at Harvard and found his system "the best ever offered to any student/*

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 163

Based on Rush, the system was "at once philosophically sound and emi-
nently practical." Barbour's reliance "on principle, and comparative
disuse of technical rules, seem to me a great advantage over all other
systems with which I am acquainted." 56 But Phillips did not speak for
the majority; student ridicule caused Barbour to resign his Harvard
post by 1835.57 Among devices unpleasant to students was his bamboo-
slatted sphere which fitted over the practicing speaker, and enabled
him to acquire with finesse all the gradations of gesture through 360°.
Although elocution was late in developing in America, it became a re-
quired study in most colleges, and remained so until late in the century,
when it became generally elective. And although early elocution closely
followed English writers of the eighteenth century, after 1827 James
Rush became the dominant influence, and remained influential through
the century. James Murdoch, for example, was a devoted student of
Rush. "I have labored," Murdoch wrote late in his career, "to simplify
and make practical Dr. Rush's Philosophy of the Voice." 5S Murdoch
taught Robert Fulton and Thomas Trueblood, eminent elocutionists at
the end of the century. They dedicated their book, Practical Elements
of Elocution,5* to Murdoch, "whose life and work have been an abiding
source of inspiration."

What has been said of the elocutionary movement in England during
the eighteenth century may be said of the concern with delivery in
America during the nineteenth century: "In methodology, it was char-
acterized by the systematic ordering of certain observed phenomena of
voice, body, and language, and by the invention and use of systems of
notation to represent these phenomena. In philosophy, it was character-
ized by a mechanistic interpretation of the laws of nature. Elocution, in
short, was a 'scientific' subject." 60 In the concern with the fifth canon
of classical rhetoric, "a new ordering of an old subject" 61 took place. As
the century advanced elocutionary training became the vogue and then
the standard pattern.

In less spectacular fashion, the older training in the rhetorical canons
other than delivery, continued. At Yale, for instance, while Erasmus
North occupied himself with elocution, Chauncey Goodrich, appointed
to the Professorship of Rhetoric in 1817, continued to pursue the older
tradition: "The Sophomores were instructed by him, through the sum-
mer term, in Jamieson's Rhetoric. The Senior Classes were taught out
of a text-book of higher Rhetoric and Criticism, and read Compositions
before him which were afterwards criticized in private. . . . The impor-
tance of his instruction to the Seniors meanwhile was increased by the
study of Demosthenes on the Grown, as the chef d'oeuvre of ancient
eloquence, and by a very interesting course of lectures on English ora-
tory " 62 Goodrich had as his object, as he explains in his preface to

164 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Select British Eloquence, "to awaken in the minds of the class that love
of genuine eloquence which is the surest pledge of success" and "to
initiate the pupil in those higher principles which . . . have always
guided the great masters of the art. ..." G3 At Columbia "the declama-
tions of the juniors and seniors were their own original compositions,
and those of the freshmen and sophomores selected pieces." 64 At Wil-
liams, Mark Hopkins, having become president in 1836, carried on with
traditional rhetorical training.65 At Amherst, the old tradition was
carried on under a grant for the endowment of a professorship of rheto-
ric and oratory as early as 1823. GS At Bowdoin, Samuel Philipp New-
man, elected in 1824 to the first professorship of rhetoric and oratory, in
1830 introduced his own textbook, A Practical System of Rhetoric, or
the Principles and Rules of Style, following the older tradition. Out of
this book, such men as Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Nathaniel
Hawthorne, Sargent Prentiss, and Franklin Pierce received their early
instruction.67

Whereas classical study of rhetoric continued, it was to some extent
affected both by the increased emphasis on delivery and by its separa-
tion from the classics as a discipline in its own right. Separate profes-
sorships meant the creation of a gulf between the classics and rhetoric,
heretofore allied very closely. At Columbia in 1833, the professor of
rhetoric, John McVickar, felt handicapped by no longer having control
of materials for study in the classics. He was not satisfied with the
materials being taught by the professor of classics since these materials
did not furnish adequate basis for rhetorical training. "The professor
would here respectfully suggest that it would greatly add to the stu-
dent's ability to pursue this course [rhetoric], were the ancient Rheto-
ricians & critical writers read contemporaneously or rather previously
in the classical course. Thus, the present Junior class knows nothing of
Cicero's IDe Oratore,' Horace's cArs Poetica'— to all of which constant
reference must be made— and an acquaintance with Longinus only so
far as their present reading has carried them." 6S In addition to the
changes brought about by the elocutionary movement and by the lesser
support from the classics, rhetorical training became increasingly linked
with belletristic study. As has been found, in terms of departmental
organization, <eby 1850 the grouping was not so frequently 'Rhetoric and
Oratory' as "Rhetoric and Belles Lettres,' or 'Rhetoric and composition/
with delivery now relegated to the tremendously popular "Elocu-
tion/"69

As new colleges began to spring up throughout the country, they
modeled their courses of study on that of the older institutions. Illinois
College, founded by Yale missionaries in 1829, specified in its laws:
"The Professor of Rhetoric shall instruct in the Critical and Rhetorical

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLLEGES 165

study of Portions of the Latin and Greek orators and poets, and also in
Composition, Translation and Declamation," 70 By 1833, it had already
stated: "The students will also receive instruction in the science of elo-
cution. . . ." 71 And Herbert E. Rhae has found that the "history of
speech education in Indiana colleges followed the pattern set by east-
ern higher institutions. This is particularly true in the weekly memorized
declamations among Freshmen and Sophomores. There was also a simi-
larity in the continuity of the original orations and disputations for
Juniors and Seniors with the practice in the East." 72

During the second quarter of the century the classical tradition in
rhetoric endured and in many places was expanded. But the innova-
tions, and the greatest expansions, occurred in systems of elocution,
with special attention to voice and gesture.

1850-1875

To Henry Adams, a college student of the 1850's, being Class Day
orator was "political as well as literary success." 73 "If Harvard College
gave nothing else," he thought, "it gave calm. For four years each stu-
dent had been obliged to figure daily before dozens of young men who
knew each other to the last fibre. One had done little but read papers
to Societies, or act comedy in the Hasty Pudding, not to speak of all
sorts of regular exercises, and no audience in future life would ever be
so intimately and terribly intelligent as these." 74 Uncertain as to
whether he was getting an "education," in one respect at least, he was
aware that the American university was doing something for its students
that the European university was not. "Three-fourths of the graduates
would rather have addressed the Council of Trent or the British Parlia-
ment than have acted Sir Anthony Absolute or Dr. Ollapod before a
gala audience of the Hasty Pudding," 75 and "nothing seemed stranger"
to the American college graduate than the "paroxysms of terror before
the public which often overcame the graduates of European Univer-
sities." 76 Adams was "ready to stand up before any audience in America
or Europe, with nerves rather steadier for the excitement," but "whether
he should ever have anything to say, remained to be proved." 77

If Henry Adams questioned whether he was receiving an education,
even so did college administrators. The narrower curriculum of an
earlier day was to expand with a country expanding in interest and
activity. Although rhetorical training was to continue, more and more
it was to give way to literature and criticism. Whereas the class orator
could still believe himself to ha^ve achieved "political as well as literary
success," he was more and more to share the rostrum with the poet, the

166 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

essayist, and the editor of the college magazine. Henry Adams himself
sought proficiency not only in oratory, but contributed to the college
magazine and acquired enthusiasm for literature through private lit-
erary study with Lowell.

Surveying the decade prior to the mid-century for evidences of train-
ing in rhetoric and oratory, Coulton on examining the departmental
organization of fifty-six colleges and universities observes that "Moral
Science and Belles Lettres" had disappeared and there has been added
in this period "English Literature," "English/' and "Philosophy and
Belles Lettres." 78 By the decade of 1870 and 1880, departmental organ-
ization continues with "English clearly predominating /' 79 According
to Samuel Eliot Morison, the advance of English as a special field which
was eventually to encompass rhetorical training in many places was "in
the nature of peaceful penetration/' 80 The delay in getting started was
due "not to opposition/' but to a "general failure to see in it anything
more than a minor element in the preparation for the ministry." 81 As
late as the sixties at Harvard "English meant elocution and rheto-
ric. . . ,82 In 1858 and 1859, "the Freshmen had Lessons in Orthoepy and
Lessons in Expression; the Sophomores, Lessons in Expression, Lessons
in Action, Themes; the Juniors, Themes, Declamation, Rhetoric; the
Seniors, Forensics; nothing more." S3 The gradual shift to an emphasis
on English literature was given impetus by Francis J. Child who suc-
ceeded Channing in the Chan: of Rhetoric and Oratory, for it was he
who "first saw the possibilities of English as a factor in general scholar-
ship." 84 Almost immediately after Child's succession, a "course of
twelve Lectures was given to the Senior Class, on the English lan-
guage." S5 Instruction was given in the second term of the Senior year
to "small voluntary classes, in Anglo Saxon, and the rudiments of Ice-
landic/' 86 In 1853, during the first term of the Senior class, students
attended Lectures on the English language, and afterwards read selec-
tions from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.87 By 1876 Child had become
"Professor of English."

During the period from 1850 to 1875, Elocution was a required sub-
ject in many colleges throughout the country. However, with pressure
from an expanded curriculum, its value as a required subject was ques-
tioned. This was a period of vast expansion for the colleges. New fields
of study were added as the country became increasingly rich, indus-
trious, and populous. Columbia founded its school of mines in 1864; 88
California by 1870 had colleges of Agriculture, Mechanical Arts, Mines,
and Civil Engineering in addition to the original Arts college.89 The
elective system of studies was greatly expanded to meet this pressure.
Having been in practice to some extent since about 1820 at the Univer-
sity of Virginia,90 it advanced rapidly after it was given new impetus

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 167

by Harvard's president Charles Eliot after 1869. The wisdom of re-
quiring elocution was questioned. In 1873, at Harvard, elocution was
dropped to elective status.91 The reason may be found in an observa-
tion of James Murdoch. Commenting on the value of elocution as it
was taught in the seventies and early eighties, Murdoch observes: "Elo-
cution, as taught at present, is, in most cases, considered and treated in
theory and practice as little more than an imitative art, and as such
yields its rightful position of honor and dignity as a branch of study
based upon philosophic or scientific principles." 92 In 1875, Allegheny
College showed unrest with a program of elocutionary training by call-
ing attention to the virtues of the system of speech training recom-
mended by Professor Nathan Sheppard, a visiting professor from
Scotland who was giving a course of lectures in which there "is no
attempt to teach 'elocution' or any artificial system, nor is public speak-
ing confounded with recitation, declamation, or dramatic reading."
Allegheny chose to "incorporate practically—especially in the advanced
classes— the suggestions and directions of Prof. Sheppard in the instruc-
tions of this department." 93 Even as early as 1861, Columbia readily
yielded up John H. Siddons, instructor in elocution, in order to avoid
a budgetary deficit, and made no appointment thereafter.94

Meanwhile, a traditionally classical approach to rhetoric continued.
Such textbooks as George Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, Blair's
Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, and Richard Whately's Rheto-
ric were still used. More often, however, textbooks to some extent based
on the principles of the English rhetorics but written by American
teachers were used. Henry N. Day's Elements of the Art of Rhetoric,
published in 1850 and later issued in 1867 as The Art of Discourse be-
came popular. Adapted to American needs, Day's treatises nevertheless
were classical. Like Blair, Day treated discourse other than oratory,
but oratory remained the highest form of art. In his view oratory was
discourse for the purpose of effect; poetry was discourse for the purpose
of form; and history and treatises were discourse for the purpose of
subject matter. Other textbooks by Americans gained prominence, such
as that of G. P. Quackenbos, Advanced Course of Composition and
Rhetoric.

One need only look at the program of the University of California
in the early seventies to realize that the classical traditions were being
fully maintained. Fortnightly themes and forensics were required dur-
ing the first, second, and third years, with theoretical study of rhetoric
confined to the third year. Whately's Rhetoric was used as a textbook,
supplemented by Cope's Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric, Blair's
Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, and Campbell's Philosophy of
Rhetoric.95 At Illinois College in the mid-west, Sophomores studied

168 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Cicero's De Oratore for one half year; Juniors studied Day's Rhetoric
and Seniors studied Demosthenes' "On the Crown." 96 Students had
optional work in Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory and in the study of
selections from English and American orators.97 At Hamilton College,
Anson Judd Upson and Henry Allen Fink were strengthening traditions
begun at the founding of the college. The 1843 rules governing "rhetori-
cals" sent all students to the Chapel during the next forty years to attend
public exercises of "declamations, select translations from the classics,
the original essays and orations." On Wednesday noon of each week
"four freshmen, four sophomores, and four juniors gave declamations
before the assembled college; on Saturday noon of each week two from
each lower class read essays, two juniors presented discussions, and two
seniors gave orations/' 9S Between 1854 and 1866 prize contests were
established in both original oratory and extemporaneous debate. "No
effort was spared by the instructor to bring out the characteristic
powers of each speaker and to ready him for the best performance of
which he was capable." 99 Although the Literary Societies at Hamilton
had begun to decline about 1850,100 a systematic training program in
speaking continued to be very strong. The oration was considered to
be an instrument of power and public service. In 1876, the Hamilton
College orator, participating in one of the earliest intercollegiate ora-
torical contests, spoke before such distinguished judges as William
Cullen Bryant, Whitelaw Reid, and George William Curtis on the sub-
ject "The Heroic Element in Modern Life" at the New York Academy
of Music and won the prize of the day. Thereafter intercollegiate ora-
torical contests sprang up all over the country, serving to revitalize
interest in public speaking.101

In the third quarter of the century, elocution lost position as a re-
quired subject, lout continued as an elective. Rhetorical training per-
severed but it was modified in the direction of belles lettres, and fre-
quently was identified with departments of English. The ever-enduring
urge for platform expression found a new outlet in intercollegiate ora-
torical contests.

V
1875-1900

Bliss Perry was a student at Williams in the early part of the last
quarter of the nineteenth century, with an "interest in speaking, writing,
and miscellaneous reading." 102 It was "curious," he thought, that he
could recall "so little" about his class work in English.103 He was obliged
to write and deliver orations once or twice a year under the supervision
of the Professor of Rhetoric, Llewellyn Pratt, who gave his productions
"as much attention as they deserved," but it was "very little." 104 The

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 169

rhetoric text was that of D. J. Hill, Science of Rhetoric. But if he re-
ceived little attention from his rhetoric instructor, he was helped to
win the coveted Graves Prize in his senior year, largely through the
assistance of George L. Raymond, who gave lessons in elocution "part
of each year." 105 "No one pays much attention to such contests now,"
observed Perry, "but in our day crowds attended them." 106 For months
he toiled away among the moth-eaten stuffed moose in Jackson Hall
learning Raymond's "vocal exercises," the "trick of deep-breathing/'
and the "proper 'placing' of the voice" from lessons in The Orators
Manual™7

Before the century was over, Perry succeeded Raymond both at
Williams and at Princeton. During his own years of service as a teacher
of rhetoric he witnessed the decline of interest in oratory in the Eastern
colleges, and tried to "prop up for a while a building that was doomed
to fall" 108 by assisting in the development of forensics, a form of speak-
ing stimulated by the organization of intercollegiate debate contests.
In the nineties, when he was at Princeton he journeyed to New Haven
and Cambridge to help organize the first intercollegiate debates be-
tween Yale, Harvard, and Princeton; and for some years they "excited
great interest." 109 He matched his wits against great teachers like
Hadley at Yale and George Pierce Baker at Harvard in faculty coaching
of debates.

Perry's experience as a student and later as a teacher in a sense
reflects the main line of development of rhetorical training and effort in
the last quarter of the nineteenth century* Rhetoric was often taught in
departments of English; oratory had a prominent position in colleges
throughout the country but was losing vogue in some of the Eastern col-
leges; instruction was given in elocution in most of the colleges and
was looked upon as an aid to students in their competitions for prizes
in oratory; forensics courses were introduced into the college curricu-
lum in order to meet the needs of organized intercollegiate debate
and faculty coaching. Students, caught up in the enthusiasm for debate,
argued its value over oratory.110 Now and then, colleges in the West
voiced the opinion that it was to be their duty and their honor to keep
both oratoiy and debate alive. "Oratory must always be foremost,"
commented the Colorado Class of '99, "if our ambition for the reputa-
tion and success of our institution is to be satisfied; eastern college men
have turned their attention to athletics and things athletic in their
nature, and it is for western colleges and universities to keep alive
the interest in debate and oratory if we would have power and
prosperity." ll:L

Debate in some form had been part of the college program from the
beginning. The art of syllogizing was probably the earliest forebear of

170 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

debate; it was succeeded in the eighteenth century by forensic dispu-
tation, More and more, disputations grew into the regular classroom
debate or the argumentative discourse. Societies had begun to meet
each other in debate early in the nineteenth century. Finally, in the last
part of the nineteenth century, more ambitious undertakings were afoot
and colleges began to meet each other in formalized debate. The curricu-
lar program adjusted itself to the needs of students. In 1885 Josiah
Royce, later to become an eminent philosopher, was in charge of "for-
ensics" at Harvard, or work in argumentative discourse. By 1888-1889,
the Harvard catalog listed Ten Lectures in argumentative composition
or oral discussion of topics in political economy and history as part of
its curriculum.112 At Boston University in the same year, Sophomores
and Juniors had vocal and forensic training; 11S Oberlin in 1891-1892
under William B. Chamberlain, offered a course in Forensic Delivery,
described as "Practical studies in Argumentation and Oratory; analy-
sis of models with reference to an audience, and criticism upon the
rendering of selected and original speeches and debates."114 In 1893-
1894, Northwestern offered a course in Forensics in which "Questions
are announced and sides are taken one week before each debate, and
references are given on the Library Bulletin to the available literature on
the respective questions." 115 Wisconsin in the same year, under Franken-
burger, had a course in Rhetoric consisting of "Exercises in debates,
essays, orations, with personal criticism." An advanced course in the
Philosophy of Rhetoric consisted of "Analysis of great orations, essays,
and debates, with higher rhetorical and literary criticism." 116 Oregon in
1896-1897 offered two courses in Forensics and Orations, using Baker's
Specimens of Argumentation as a textbook.117 By the end of the cen-
tury, California had four courses in Argumentation and Debate. They
were devoted to preparation of briefs, practice in debate, oral debate
on literary topics with analysis of stylistic features of argumentative
discourse, and studies in masterpieces of argumentation. In addition, a
course in Greek was devoted to a study of Plato's Gorgias with special
reference to the Socratic method of argumentation.118 Alabama had in
1898 as part of the English course, training in argumentative dis-
course.119 Michigan in 1899 had a course in Oral Discussion which con-
sisted of "application of the principles of formal logic and elocution in
debating leading questions of the day," and preparation of briefs. This
course was designed to "develop readiness of extemporization and is
recommended to those who desire to enter the inter-collegiate de-
bates." 12° And the University of Illinois offered in the department of
Rhetoric and Oratory, a course in Oral Discussion, emphasizing data
for discussion, with oral debates and attention to delivery.121
These are typical of the programs of training common throughout

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 171

the country. Coaches and students alike were learning the art of for-
malized debate, and usually using as a basic text George Pierce Baker's
Specimens of Argumentation or his Principles of Argumentation., or
both. But the programs were a culmination of movements in the cen-
tury. Half of the material in Baker's Specimens was taken from Good-
rich, even to the notes. Students at the end of the century were apply-
ing the method of rhetorical criticism Goodrich had illustrated so
thoroughly at mid-century.

Meanwhile, in this last quarter of the nineteenth century new devel-
opments took place in the handling of elocutionary training and in the
formalization of speech programs. Itinerant teachers of elocution were
gradually affixing themselves to colleges as part of a curriculum which
was becoming more stabilized. In 1877 when William Jennings Bryan
was a student at Illinois College, S. S. Hammill was instructing in elo-
cution for part of the year. According to Bryan, 'lie rather leaned to
the dramatic and recommended dramatic pieces to us. I rather pre-
ferred the oratorical style. . . . He trained us in modulation of the voice,
gesticulation, etc., and I presume that his instructions were beneficial
to me, although I have been so much more interested in the subject
matter than in the form of presentation that my use of his advice has
been unconscious rather than intentional." 122 In the summer session of
1878 Hammill attracted two students who were to carry on his work
and to establish departments and schools of oratory in two leading uni-
versities. The two students were Thomas C. Trueblood and Robert I.
Fulton who, after additional training with James Murdoch, established
elocutionary training at the University of Michigan and at Ohio Wes-
leyan University, in a more formal way than it had been taught in many
schools. Elocutionary training never died out of the college curriculum.
After the elective system had come into use on a large scale, elocu-
tionary training was often elective; at other places it was required but
not accredited for graduation. At Michigan in 1892, Trueblood was
made Professor of Elocution and launched a formalized program of
speech training with full college credit attached.123

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the principles of elocu-
tionary training which had been based on Rush 124 were supplemented
by a stream of thought deriving from the French music teacher and
actor, Delsarte. Thus the physiological theories of Rush were united
with aesthetic theories. College catalogs occasionally refer to the nature
of the elocutionary training. Oregon offered at the end of the century
numerous courses in elocution, indicating that "General Principles of
Delsarte and Mackaye" 125 were used. At Michigan, "the Rush and Del-
sarte philosophies" 126 were taught. At Colorado, the instructor in ora-
tory, W. H. Goodall, was an "enthusiastic admirer of Delsarte " 127

172 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Enthusiasm for the Delsarte theory of elocution sometimes meant em-
phasis on physical culture; at Colorado, W. H. Goodall was "proficient
in elocution, gesture work and physical culture." At the University of
Illinois in 1895, an instructor in Elocution and in Physical Culture for
Women gave courses in Oral Rhetoric, including work in breathing and
modulation, and practiced "the Delsarte Culture." 12S At Huron College
at the end of the century Elbert R. Moses was listed as Director of a
"Department of Oratory and Physical Culture." Exercises in club swing-
ing, fencing, walking, and calisthenics were part of the program.129

At the time that Fulton and Trueblood were preparing for a life of
teaching, Samuel Silas Curry was a student at Boston University, where
Lewis B. Monroe, a student of Delsarte, was in charge of the School of
Oratory. In 1879, when Monroe died, Curry succeeded to the position
of director of oratorical training. Stimulated in part by Delsarte's
theories deriving from Monroe, in part by Alexander Graham Bell's
lectures on the science of the voice, and by numerous other influences
both American and foreign, Curry became eclectic in his theories and
teaching. Disturbed by mechanical and imitative practices, Curry for-
mulated his own theories, and in 1891 published Province of Expression,,
stressing the need for mental training as a basis for effective delivery.
Toward the end of the century Curry's theories were gaining wide cur-
rency in the schools.

Classical traditions went on in the last part of the nineteenth century,
but more and more the concern in departments of English was with
forms of writing other than oratory. Whereas the theory of invention
was once almost exclusively oriented in oratorical discourse, more and
more the orientation became that of prose composition generally. Books
such as those of Quackenbos' Advanced Course in Composition and
Rhetoric and John Franklin Genung's The Practical Elements of Rheto-
ric, and Adams Sherman Hill's The Principles of Rhetoric helped to
establish new categories of rhetoric: narration, description, exposition,
and argumentation.130 In the last decade of the century, courses in
public speaking were established and differentiated from the usual
courses in rhetoric. Oral and written discourse began to be taught sepa-
rately. And argumentation became almost exclusively the concern of
public speaking.

In his survey of rhetorical training in the colleges during a large part
of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century,
Thomas Coulton observed: "We seem to be dealing, then, with a
discipline which came to no sudden awakening after a period of neg-
lect, but one which, having long been maintained in its accustomed

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLLEGES 173

place, was lifted on the tide of larger public interest in higher educa-
tion and met the swell of this tide by offering more semesters of work
and in greater variety. Both growth and adjustment are evidenced." 131
The consistent line of instruction throughout the century was classical
rhetorical training, both in specialized courses and in supplementary
programs in Greek and Latin. John Quincy Adams delivered the key-
note for the age when he eulogized Aristotle and the ancients. In the
first quarter of the century the rambling instruction of the earlier Cen-
tury "was systematized and ensconced in chairs of rhetoric. And the
purposes were expanded beyond eighteenth-century syllogizing and
disputing to include general training to make the orator more literate
and discerning. But Adams' suggestion that little could be added to the
classical tradition was never accepted fully. In the second quarter of
the century, particular concern was .for systems of elocution, with train-
ing in voice and bodily gesture, with attempts to apply "science * to the
field" "of speech. In the third quarter of the century speech training
became linked with English literature, and departments of English
assumed the main responsibility for training in rhetoric. Interest in
elocution diminished, but the persistent urge of students to find artistic
oral expression sought an outlet in intercollegiate speaking contests.
In tEeTast quarter of the century courses in public speaking and par-
ticularly in argumentation and forensic forms, became established.
SpeecTi as a field— the classical rhetorical tradition combined with the
newer concerns of vocal and physical training— became established
clearly if not firmly. The base was supplied for the detailed structures
which were to be erected in the twentieth-century Departments of
Speech.

Notes

1. Edward T. Charming, "Inaugural Discourse, December 8, 1819" (Cam-
bridge, 1819), p. 14.

2. Varnum Lansing Collins, President Wither spoon (Princeton, 1925), I,
141-143.

3. Denison Olmsted, "Timothy D wight as a Teacher," American Journal of
Education, V (1858), 567-585.

4. Ibid.

5. Samuel Eliot Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard, 1636-1936 (Cambridge,
1936), p. 138.

6. Ibid.

7. Letter of Reverend Andrew Eliot to Thomas Hollis, quoted by Morison,
p. 138.

8. Memoir of William Ellery Channing, with Extracts from his Correspondence
and Manuscripts, 6th ed. (Boston, 1854), I, 68.

9. Ibid., I, 69, 70.

10. Ibid., I, 60.

11. Letter of Arthur Walter to William Ellery Channing, April 1, 1803, quoted
in Joseph B. Felt, Memoirs of William Smith Shaw (Boston, 1852), pp. 167, 168.

174 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

12. Monthly Anthology, I (December, 1803), 51.

13. Ibid., I, 62.

14. Letter of John Quincy Adams to his brother, August 7, 1809, quoted in
Writings of John Quincy Adams, ed. Worthmgton Chauncey Ford (New York,
1914), III, 334.

15. Donald M. Goodfellow, "The First Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Ora-
tory/' New England Quarterly, XIX (September, 1946), 373, 374.

16. Ibid., pp. 372-389.

17. The Diary of John Quincy Adams, ed. Allan Nevins (New York, 1928)
p. 42.

18. Goodfellow, op. cit., pp. 372-389; Josiah Quincy, The History of Harvard
University (Cambridge, 1840), II, 214-215, 290-291, 324, 326, Edward Everett,
"A Eulogy on the Life and Character of John Quincy Adams" (Boston, 1848), pp.
33-35, Samuel Flagg Bemis, John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American
Foreign Policy (New York, 1949), pp. 132-134.

19. "An Inaugural Oration, Delivered at the Author's Installation as Boylston
Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory," in Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratoni (Cam-
bridge, 1810), p. 26.

20. Charles E. Cuningham, Timothy Dwight (New York, 1942), p. 239.

21. Autobiography, Correspondence, Etc., of Lyman Beecher, D. D., ed. Charles
Beecher (New York, 1865), I, 48.

22. President Dwight's Decisions of Questions Discussed by the Senior Class
in Yale College, in 1813 and 1814 [From stenographic notes by Theodore Dwight]
(New York, 1833), pp. 5, 6ff.

23. "Harvard Commencement," Columbian Centinel, September 2, 1815, p. 1,
col. 4,

24. Warren Guthrie, "Development of Rhetorical Theory in America, 1635-
1850," Speech Monographs, XV (1948), 70.

25. Morison, op. cit, pp. 187 ff.

26. Van Wyck Brooks, The Flowering of New England, 1815-1865, new and
rev. ed. (New York, 1937), pp. 12 ff.

27. Letter of Dr. Beecher to Dr. Woods, November 12, 1820, quoted in Auto-
biography, Correspondence, Etc., of Lyman Beecher, D. D., I, 436, 437.

28. "On the Relation Between the Clergy and People, and some Prevailing
Misapprehensions of the Ministry," Christian Examiner, II ( January & February
1825), 5, 6. y

29. "Remarks on the Character and Writings of Fenelon," in The Works of
William Ellery Channing, llth ed. (Boston, 1849), I, 167.

30. Letter of Channing to William Smith Shaw, quoted in Memoir of William
Ellery Channing, I, 99.

31. Guthrie, op. cit., 62.

32. Hugh Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, Lecture 1. Numerous
editions of Blair's Lectures have appeared since the Edinburgh edition of 1783;
therefore, references to specific Lectures are more meaningful than page references
and shall be used hereafter.

33. Robert Morell Schmitz, Hugh Blair (New York, 1948), p. 1.

34. Ibid., p. 3. ^

35. Lecture 1.

36. Ibid.

37. Letter of the Columbia College Professors to the Trustees, Feb. 20, 1809,
quoted in Helen P. Roach, History of Speech Education at Columbia College*
1754-1940 (New York, 1950), p. 23.

38. Cf . Anthony F. Blanks, "An Introductory Study in the History of the Teach-
ing of Public Speaking in the United States," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stan-
ford, 1927; Herbert Edgar Rahe, "The History of Speech Education in Ten Indiana
Colleges, 1820-1938," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wisconsin, 1939. Rahe (p.
384) concludes, "In general, we may concur with Blanks that the early history of

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY COLLEGES 175

speech education in the East tended to be duplicated in later colleges in the Middle
West."

39. William Tudor, Letters on the Eastern States (Boston, 1821), pp. 345, 346.

40 Andrew P. Peabody, Harvard Reminiscences (Boston, 1888), p. 88.

41. Ibid., pp. 88, 89.

42. Brooks, op. cit., p. 43.

43. Edward T. Channing, Lectures Read to the Seniors in Harvard College
(Boston, 1856), p. 31.

44. See Dorothy I. Anderson, "Edward T. Channing's Philosophy and Teaching
of Rhetoric/* unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa, 1944; "Edward T. Channing's
Definition of Rhetoric," SM, XIV (1947), 81-92; "Edward T. Channing's Teaching
of Rhetoric," SM, XVI (August, 1949), 69-81.

45. "Eloquence and Eloquent Men," New-England Magazine, II (February,
1832), 93-100.

46. Life and Letters of Catharine Sedgwick, ed. Mary E. Dewey (New York,
1871), p. 121.

47. Columbian Centinel, July 19, 1794, p. 3.

48. Letter of Dr. Beecher to Dr. Leonard Woods, November 12, 1820, quoted
in Autobiography, Correspondence, Etc., of Lyman Beecher, I, 436, 437.

49. Ota Thomas, "The Teaching of Rhetoric in the United States During the
Classical Period of Education," in A History and Criticism of American Public
Address, ed. William Norwood Brigance (New York, 1943), I, 205.

50. Daniel William Scully, "The Influence of James Rush, M. D, upon Ameri-
can Elocution Through His Immediate Followers," unpublished M.A. thesis, Loui-
siana, 1951, pp. 48-85.

51. (New Haven, 1830).

52. Catalogue of the Officers and Students in Yale College, 1830-1831.

53. Peabody, Harvard Reminiscences, p. 90.

54. Scully, "The Influence of James Rush," pp. 48-85.

55. Ibid.

56. James E. Murdoch, A Plea for Spoken Language (Cincinnati and New
York, 1883), p. 102.

57. Peabody, Harvard Reminiscences, p. 91; Scully, "The Influence of James
Rush," pp. 48-85.

58. Analytic Elocution (Cincinnati and New York, 1884), Preface, p. iv.

59. (Boston, 1893).

60. Frederick W. Haberman, "The Elocutionary Movement in England, 1750-
1850," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1947, p. 43.

61. Ibid.

62. T. D. Woolsey, "Address Commemorative of Chauncey Allen Goodrich,"
quoted in John P. Hoshor, "Lectures on Rhetoric and Public Speaking by Chauncey
Allen Goodrich," SM, XIV (1947), 2.

63. Chauncey Goodrich, Select British Eloquence (New York, 1852), Preface.

64. Roach, Speech Education at Columbia College, p. 40.

65. George Gary Bush, History of Higher Education in Massachusetts (Wash-
ington, 1891), pp. 229, 232; see also Franklin Carter, Mark Hopkins (Boston,
1893), pp. 143, 144.

66. Bush, Higher Education in Massachusetts, p. 261.

67. P. M. D. Williamson, "Speech at Bowdoin," unpublished manuscript of a
speech delivered at the Convention of the Speech Association of America, Decem-
ber, 1951.

68. "Annual Report of Professor John McVickar, 1833," and "Report of Mr.
William Betts, 1830," quoted in Roach, Speech Education at Columbia College,
pp. 48-49.

69. Guthrie, op. cit , p. 69.

70. Donald Elmer Polzin, "Curricular and Extra-Curricular Speech Training at

176 RHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Illinois College, 1829-1900," unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Illinois, 1952,
p. 4.

71. Ibid., p. 3.

72. Rahe, "Speech Education in Ten Indiana Colleges," p. 410.

73. Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams (New York, 1931), p. 66.

74. Ibid., p. 69.

75. Ibid.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid.

78. Thomas E Coulton, "Trends in Speech Education in American Colleges,
1835-1935," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1935, p. 43.

79. Ibid.9 p. 46.

80. Samuel Eliot Morison, The Development of Harvard University, 1869-1929
(Cambridge, 1930), pp. 66-67.

81. Ibid.

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid.

84. Ibid.

85. Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1855-53.

86. Ibid.

87. Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1853-54.

88. Roach, Speech Education at Columbia College, p. 73.

89. Register of the University of California, 1870.

90. Louis Franklin Snow, The College Curriculum in the United States (New
York, 1907), p. 173.

91. Morison, Development of Harvard University, pp. 74-81.

92. Murdoch, A Plea for Spoken Language, p. 9.

93. Catalog of Allegheny College, 1875-1876, p. 32.

94. Roach, Speech Education at Columbia College, p. 77.

95. Register of the University of California, 1870.

96. Polzin, "Speech Training at Illinois College," pp. 9, 10.

97. Ibid.,p 9.

98. Willard B. Marsh, "A Century and a Third of Speech Training at Hamilton
College," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXIII (February, 1947), 23-27.

99. Ibid., p. 26.

100. Ibid.9 p. 23.

101. Ibid., p. 27.

102. Bliss Perry, And Gladly Teach (Boston and New York, 1935), p. 56.

103. Ibid., p. 56.

104. Ibid.

105. Ibid.

106. Ibid., p. 67.

107. Ibid., p. 57.

108. Ibid.9 p. 135.

109. Ibid.

110. The Silver and Gold (University of Colorado student newspaper), Feb. 21,
1893.

111. The Coloradoan (1900), p. 108.

112. Bush, Higher Education in Massachusetts, p. 156.

113. Ibid., p. 252.

114. Catalogue of Oberlin College for the Year 1891-92.

115. Catalogue of Northwestern University, 1893-94.

116. Catalogue of the University of Wisconsin for 1893-94.

117. Catalogue of the University of Oregon, Eugene, 1896-97.

118. University of California Annual Announcement of Courses of Instruction
in the College at Berkeley for the Academic Year 1899-1900.

TRAINING IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY COLLEGES 177

119. Catalogue of the Officers and Students of the University of Alabama, for
the Academic Year 1898-99.

120. Calendar of the University of Michigan, 1899-1900.

121. Catalogue of the University of Illinois, 1898-99.

122. W. J. Bryan and Mary Baird Bryan, The Memoirs of William Jennings
Bryan (Chicago, 1925), p. 87.

123. Thomas C. Trueblood, "Pioneering in Speech/' QJS, XXVII (December,
1941), 503-511, see also Giles Wilkeson Gray, "Research in the Histoiy of Speech
Education," QJS, XXXV (April, 1949), 156-163.

124. Ibid.

125. Catalogue of the University of Oregon, 1896-97.

126. Calendar of the University of Michigan, 1899-1900.

127. Columbine (University of Colorado school annual), I (1893), p. 38.

128. Catalogue of the University of Illinois, 1893-94.

129. Huron College Catalogue, 1901-02.

130. John F. Genung, The Study of Rhetoric in the College Course (Boston,
1892), p. 12.

131. Coulton, "Speech Education in American Colleges," p. 139.

O The Elocutionary Movement and its
Chief Figures

MARY MARGARET ROBB

The Elocutionary Movement in America derived from the English
schools of elocution and until the beginning of the nineteenth century
showed little originality. The greatest single influence upon teachers
and textbook writers during this early period was Dr. James Rush who
introduced scientific aspects of vocal production in his book, Philosophy
of the Human Voice, published in 1827. Teaching of elocution was
given a new impetus; it was concerned not only with the delivery of
the speaker or reader as it affected the audience but with an analysis
of vocal production in physiological and physical terms. Because of a
demand for such training by students who planned to be ministers,
lawyers, or political leaders, elocution became a part of the educational
program. The organization of lyceums and reading groups, the popu-
larity of the public lecturer and reader, and the growth of the American
theatre also contributed, perhaps indirectly, to a new emphasis upon
training in the effective use of voice and gesture.

This was an ideal time for such a movement to flourish. The country
itself was expanding, pushing its physical boundaries westward and
extending its mental boundaries to accommodate new and controversial
ideas. It is the period often referred to as "romantic"; the potentials for
the development of the greatest, free, educated people seemed self-
evident.1 Commager characterizes the American of the nineteenth cen-
tury as both romantic and sentimental: "He was sentimental about
Nature in her grander aspects and liked rolling rhetoric in his orators.
He thought the whole history of his country romantic and heroic and
on every Fourth of July and Decoration Day indulged in orgies of
sentiment/7 2 This was a time which demanded orators, ministers, lec-

178

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 179

turers, and actors who could make themselves heard over the noise of
a lusty and vociferous populace.

The oratory of this period proclaimed the ideals of America and
debated her problems; the lyceum popularized the lecturer as a form
of entertainment combined with instruction; and the theatre, especially
in urban centers, became an accepted part of the cultural pattern. When
Puritan restraints were somewhat relaxed, the public which had been
starved overlong demanded a generous and hearty dramatic fare in all
public speech. In America Learns to Play, Dulles says: "It was an age
of oratory, of theatricalism. The actors were the rivals of Clay, Calhoun,
and Webster, and they tried to outdo them at their own trade." 3

In answer to a demand for training in elocution many people became
teachers (they were often trained for other professions such as medi-
cine or the theatre ) and, in step with a new interest in science, tried to
add to their scientific knowledge of the vocal instrument and thus
improve their methods of instruction. The Philosophy of the Human
Voice gave them direction and inspiration. Walker's Elements of Elocu-
tion was the most popular English textbook used in the American col-
leges at the beginning of the century, but Sheridan, Steele, Austin,
Burgh, Scott, ,and Whately all exerted an influence on these early elo-
cutionists. However, the day of English dominance had passed and the
Rush System was to stimulate many American teachers of elocution to
write their own textbooks. From an examination of college catalogs,
Guthrie found that the American textbooks used from 1821-1850 were
those written by Ebenezer Porter, James Barber, Merritt Caldwell, and
William Russell. The only textbook that rivalled them in popularity
was Walker's Elements of Elocution, and the most used textbooks were
those written by Porter.4

Although declamations, disputations, and training in rhetoric had
been a part of the college program from the beginning, it was not until
the nineteenth century that special chairs were endowed and speech
training organized into different courses. Elocution, sometimes of-
fered as a separate study, was often combined with the course in com-
position. At Amherst, in 1842-1843, a course was offered for Freshmen
called Elements of Orthoepy and Elocution which was supplemented
by weekly exercises in declamation and composition. At the same time,
the University of Alabama was offering a course, Elocution, which in-
cluded original compositions in Latin and English that were given
publicly by the Freshmen every Wednesday. In 1861, Harvard gave a
course entitled Elocution which included: Lessons in Orthoepy, Lessons
in Expression, Lessons in Action, and Rhetorical Analysis and Reading.
The Yale catalog for the same year describes a Sophomore course as
Elocution, Declamation, and Composition.5

180 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

There was an interest in elocutionary training in the lower schools as
well as in the colleges. William Russell, the first editor of the American
Journal of Education (from 1826-1829) was particularly interested in
the improvement of the "expressive faculties," regulated "by the laws
of thought, as dictated by the sciences of logic and grammar, adorned
by the graces of rhetoric." G Russell wrote many books to assist the
teacher in the lower school. Some of the textbooks written by other
elocutionists were shortened so that they could be used in the grammar
schools; Porter's Rhetorical Grammar was one of of the most popular.
In addition, there were innumerable "speakers" and "readers," consist-
ing mainly of selections of poetry and prose but usually offering some
elocutionary theory. The famous McGuffey readers gave credit to
Walker for the elocutionary principles recommended to teacher and
pupil.

Desire for education was rivalled only by the desire to be entertained.
The theatre had broken through the puritanic prejudice by the end of
the eighteenth century. In the first decades of the nineteenth century,
the stars were usually English actors, but by mid-century native talent
was recognized. The theatre circuit extended from Boston to New
Orleans and on to California, and more than fifty established stock
companies were scattered throughout the country in 1850. 7

The -professional readers were closely related to the theatre; most of
them were actors who, when not playing in the theatre, gave programs
of readings from Shakespeare or from well-known poets. This kind of
entertainment was especially popular during Lent and was approved
by many people who were still suspicious of the theatre as a form of
entertainment. Anna Cora Mowatt, the author of Fashion, claims the
distinction of being the first American woman to read professionally.
After appearances in Boston and Providence, she appeared at Stuy-
vesant Institute, New York, on November 13, 1841, reading selections
from Scott, Mrs. Hemans, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Lord Byron.
Shortly thereafter, there were six women elocutionists who were giving
programs throughout the country.8 Among the actors, Edwin Forrest,
Edwin Booth, George Vanderhoff, and James E. Murdoch were popu-
lar readers.

During this early period in the development of elocution in America,
the teacher was often an itinerant who gave lectures and programs of
readings in addition to his work as an instructor. He often gave private
lessons in several educational institutions in an area. Sometimes he set
up his own private school of elocution.

The School of Practical Rhetoric and Oratory, organized by Russell
and Murdoch, was one of the first private schools. Andrew Comstock
was operating his Vocal and Polyglot Gymnasium in Philadelphia at

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 181

about the same time. The National School of Elocution and Oratory
was established by J. W. Shoemaker in Philadelphia in 1866. By the end
of the century, the professional school had developed into an institution
of importance. Four of the largest and best known schools were devel-
oped in the last quarter of the century: the School of Expression which
later became Curry College, Emerson College of Oratory, the Colum-
bia School of Expression, and the Phillips School of Oratory. The first
two were in Boston, the second two in Chicago.9

It seems clear that professional, educational, and cultural conditions
were congenial to the development of elocution. To appreciate what
the elocutionists were teaching their students, attention will now be
focused on several of the principal figures in the movement. Rush, him-
self, is reserved for special study elsewhere in this volume. We shall be
concerned chiefly with: Ebenezer Porter, James Barber, William Rus-
sell, James E. Murdoch, and Samuel Silas Curry. Barber and Murdoch
were devoted to the Rush system; Porter and Curry were eclectic in
their theories and methods, taking what they considered best from
other elocutionists and adding ideas of their own. They were all sin-
cere in their desire to improve the speaking and reading of the Ameri-
can people, and they were all interested in studying the vocal mecha-
nism so that they might evolve methods of teaching which would follow
the cues that they found in nature. It is true that they often labelled
current methods as "mechanical" or "natural," and that there was variety
in the systems followed, but the objectives of the leaders were pretty
much the same. The followers were the ones, who, by misinterpreta-
tion and lack of serious study and appreciation, sometimes brought
discredit upon the elocutionary movement.

As in England, the century before, the clergy were among the first
to emphasize the need for training in elocution. Rev. Ebenezer Porter,
Bartlett Professor of Sacred Rhetoric in Andover Seminary, was one of
the pioneer teachers and textbook writers. He believed that the worst
faults in elocution originated from a lack of feeling but recognized also
the faults of diction, monotonous inflections, inappropriate stress, and
timing. Since Walker's Elements of Elocution did not quite satisfy his
needs as a teacher, he wrote his own textbook.10 Porter, like Rush, was
interested in developing a scientific basis for voice training. Yarbrough
believes him to be the first teacher to consider speech from the point
of view of anatomy and physiology.11 His Lectures on Eloquence
includes four chapters on these aspects of speech.

Porter divided the study of elocution into five parts: articulation, in-

182 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

flection, accent and emphasis, modulation, and action. His approach to
the problem of improving the reading and speaking of the student was
an analysis of the faults as they represented deviations from good con-
versational speech and a program of practice to substitute good habits
for the undesirable ones. Porter believed that the student should be
allowed to read without interruption in class exercises. When he had
finished, the teacher pointed out the mistakes, demonstrated by read-
ing the exercise correctly, then asked the student to repeat the parts
that were not well done.12

In his discussion of articulation, Porter attributes defective sounds to
bad organs, bad habits, or difficulties of production. He also suggests
that there is a connection between the temperament of the reader and
his articulation.

A sluggish action of the mind imparts a correspondent character to the action
of the vocal organs, and makes speech only a succession of indolent, half-
formed sounds, more resembling the muttering of a dream than clear articu-
lation. . . . Excess of vivacity, on the other hand, or excess of sensibility, often
produces a hasty, confused utterance.13

Like many of the early elocutionists, Porter was interested in pro-
moting good health in connection with elocutionary training. He be-
lieved that the quantity or fullness of the voice depended upon the
strength of the lungs and, in turn, believed that exercises in using the
voice with as much force as possible would develop the lungs. Stam-
mering he attributed to "some infidelity of the nervous temperament";
the cure depended upon improving the bodily health as a means of
giving "firmness to the nervous system," 14

Although Porter attempted to follow Walker, he was really closer to
Sheridan and other English elocutionists who placed understanding
and feeling ahead of rules. A preliminary training of the voice Porter
considered necessary, but the most important part of effective delivery
was the emotional sincerity of the speaker:

After getting command of the voice, the great point to be steadily kept in
view, is to apply the principles of emphasis and inflection, just as nature and
sentiment demand. In respect to those principles of modulation, in which the
power of delivery so essentially consists, we should always remember too
that, as no theory of passions can teach a man to be pathetic, so no descrip-
tion that can be given of the inflection, emphasis, and tones, which accom-
pany emotion, can impart this emotion, or be a substitute for it.15

Porter used notations for inflectional changes and to indicate modula-
tion.16 However, any system for the representation of sound he felt to
be inadequate without the aid of the teacher's voice. The examples used
were colloquial in order to encourage the reader to use conversational
tones which, "being conformed to nature/' were instinctively right: ir

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 183

In contending with any bad habit of voice, let him break up the sentence
on which the difficulty occurs, and throw it, if possible, into colloquial form.
Let him observe in himself and others, the turns of voice which occur in
speaking, familiarly and earnestly, on common occasions. Good taste will then
enable him to transfer to public delivery the same turns of voice, adapting
them, as he must of necessity, to the elevation of his subject.18

According to Porter, modulation, or variety in pitch and quantity, and
inflection must conform to the sense of the material. The pitch of the
voice, Porter says, should be "the middle key or that which we spon-
taneously adopt in earnest conversation." 19

Porter uses the terms emphatic stress (including time and loudness)
and emphatic inflection, to indicate methods of pointing up an idea or
intensifying an emotion. The principle of emphatic stress, he explains,
is that "it falls on a particular word, not chiefly because that word be-
longs to one class or another in grammar, but because, in the present
case, it is important to sense."

Teachers of elocution were interested in action as well as voice; many
of them used the mechanical system presented in Austin's Chironomia.,
at least as a starting place. Barber states that his Practical Treatise on
Gesture is abstracted chiefly from Chironomia. Russell gives credit to
this source but says that he adapted the exercises to his own methods.20
Porter in his discussion of action in terms of gesture, attitude, and
expression of countenance, speaks of two extremes which should be
avoided. The first encumbers the speaker with so much technical regu-
lation that he becomes affected and mechanical in manner; the other
condenses all precepts and preparatory practice into the advice, "Be
natural." His attitude toward this aspect of elocution is as follows: "The
body is the instrument of the soul, the medium of expressing internal
emotions by external signs. The less these signs depend upon the will,
on usage, or on accident, the more uniform are they, and the more cer-
tainly to be relied on." All bodily movement, he thought, should be
spontaneous and reflect the speaker's mental and emotional reactions
to the material.21

Ebenezer Porter, according to his associates in Andover Theological
Seminary, was an outstanding person— an able teacher, writer, and
minister. As a teacher he excelled in pointing out with precision faults
in composition, enunciation, and gesticulation, and in prescribing cor-
rectives.22 According to Rowe, he had an attractive personality and was
always kindly in his class criticisms of the "crude homiletical achieve-
ments." 23

In the History of Andover Theological Seminary, Dr. Porter is com-
mended highly for his work. In 1827, he was selected by his colleagues
to be the first president of the Seminary. He continued his work as pro-

184 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

fessor of rhetoric until 1831; he was assisted by William Russell from
1828 to 1829, and from 1829 to 1831 by Jonathan Barber.24

Porter's skill in writing, no doubt, accounts in part for the popularity
of his textbooks and the influence he exerted outside theological circles.
In 1824, he published a pamphlet, Analysis of Vocal Inflection as
Applied in Reading and Speaking. The textbook, Analysis of the Prin-
ciples of Rhetorical Delivery, was published in 1827, and the shortened
and simplified form designed for grammar schools, The Rhetorical
Reader, in 1831. By 1843, it was used in the schools in every state of
the Union. A new enlarged edition was published in 1848. As was
stated earlier, Porter's textbooks were the most popular of the Amer-
ican books on elocution. Guthrie gives the following list of adop-
tions: Arnherst 1827-1828, Brown 1826-1832, Dartmouth 1828-1840,
Georgia 1844-1848, Gettysburg 1846-1849, Hampden-Sydney 1839-?,
Middlebury 1828-1845, Mount Holyoke 1830-?, Wesleyan 1832-1849.25
According to the review of the book in the North American Review,
July, 1829, Porter's Analysis of the Principles of Rhetorical Delivery was
the best of its kind.26

Ebenezer Porter contributed immeasurably to the growth of the elo-
cutionary movement in the United States, He developed his own
theories, based upon those of the English elocutionists, directed to
the problems of teaching American students. He wrote in a clear pre-
cise style and attempted to select materials for reading which would
develop a good conversational style. Although he was first of all a min-
ister, he sought to improve American elocutionary training.

Ill

The attempt to make elocution scientific and to develop better meth-
ods of instruction led first to a study of the simplest elements, the vowel
and consonant sounds, and to an emphasis upon the improvement of
articulation as the beginning of all speech training. American speech
may have been so careless that the need justified the great effort exerted
to make students sound the "vocal elements" properly before attempting
reading exercises. Barber was most emphatic in his belief that "Elocu-
tion should always attend to articulation, as the primary object; and in
the first instance, it should be prosecuted alone, as a distinct branch of
the art, and prosecuted until perfection in it is attained." According to
Barber's Grammar of Elocution, there were forty-six vocal elements
which depended upon certain definite positions of the organs of speech
—seventeen vowels and twenty-nine consonants.27

In the preface to the second edition of Philosophy of the Human
Voice, Dr. Rush states that Jonathan Barjb^ was-tira&^JEga^^to use

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 185

his system of elocution. By appointing Dr. Barber to its department of
el~utio— Harvard j)ecame j£e grgt chartere(j institution that gave "in-
fluential and responsible approbation of the work." 28 Barber was an
English physician who had devoted himself to elocution even before
meeting Dr. Rush. He had published books of readings and recitations,
and manuals for pronunciation and gesture earlier, but his most impor-
tant textbooks were written when he was teaching at Yale, Harvard,
and Andover Seminary. A Grammar of Elocution was published in 1830,
and the simplified edition designed for the common schools titled, An.
Introduction to the Grammar of Elocution, in 1834. These two books
rested heavily upon the theories of Rush, but credit was also given to
Steele for theories concerning melody, and to Austin for those on
gesture.

Barber undoubtedly developed his own methods of teaching but
used Rush's terminology and based his course of training on the prin-
ciples set forth in The Philosophy of the Human Voice. It has been
mentioned that Barber emphasized training in articulation; he provided
tables of the vocal elements and many exercises to be used in the prac-
tice of vowel and consonant sounds and their combinations. He believed
that practice in unison, no matter how large the class, was a very effec-
tive way of teaching. 'When time allows/' he says, "it may be well for
single scholars in turn to follow the teacher's voice, before the class
make an attempt together; but the final concerted movement ought
never to be dispensed with." When the class progressed to the study of
sentences, they analyzed the sentence and decided upon the intonation
which the idea demanded and then repeated it together.

Murdoch records that the students sometimes rebelled against the
long period of practice on the elementary sounds which Barber re-
quired. However, Wendell Phillips testified that he had gained much
from his class at Harvard. "Whatever I have acquired in the art of im-
proving and managing my voice," he says, "I owe to Dr. Barber's sys-
tem, suggestions, and lessons. No volume or treatise on the voice except
those of Rush and Barber has ever been of any practical value to me." 29

The following analysis of the pronunciation of the word man will
give some idea of the meticulous way in which Barber worked:

In pronouncing the word MAN the lips are first intentionally brought to-
gether and pressed in a certain way against each other, and air being at the
same time forcibly impelled from the throat, a sound is heard which some-
what resembles the lowing of an ox. The lips which before were held in
somewhat forcible contact are now separated, the mouth is opened and its
cavity is put into a particular shape; and air being again impelled from the
throat during this position of the mouth, the sound A is heard as that letter
is pronounced in the word a-t. Finally this last sound being completed, the
tip of the tongue is carried upwards from the lower part of the mouth, and

186 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

air issuing from the throat in a forcible manner during this state of the parts,
the peculiar sound appropriate to the letter N is heard. In order to obtain
a demonstration of the particulars of this description, let the word MAN be
pronounced in a drawling manner, and let the process of articulation be care-
fully attended to during its continuance. Let the position which the lips first
adopt be maintained for some time while the murmur, by which the sound
M is produced, is continued from the throat; avoiding at the same time to
proceed to sound A: then ceasing to sound the M, let the A be next sounded
alone, observing the particular shape which the mouth assumes during the
sound, as well as the character of the sound itself, after this stop again, and
whilst the tip of the tongue is pressed against the roof of the mouth and the
upper gums, let the N be slowly murmured through the organs. After the
three sounds of the word have thus been separately pronounced, let MAN
be slowly uttered, so that each separate sound and the coalescence of them
with each other, may be distinctly perceived at the same time.30

English elocutionists, Walker, Sheridan, and Steele, were all inter-
ested in the study of sounds and of pronunciation, and in the explana-
tion of the rhythms of prosody. Haberman states that they laid the
foundation for the later development of speech therapy, voice training,
and phonetics.31 The early American elocutionists usually acknowl-
edged their debt to these men and often used their theories and nota-
tions. Barber used Steel e's notations for time and stress in Exercises in
Reading and Recitation, and in the selections of poetry and prose in the
Grammar of Elocution.32

Barber, for example, made an attempt in his later writings to explain
the rhythm of speech in terms of the vocal mechanism and its adjust-
ments for speaking. He felt that the speaker in following the rhythm
of respiration would find it necessary to pause more often than punc-
tuation indicated. A measure in speech he defined as a heavy or
accented portion of a syllabic sound and a light and unaccented portion
which were produced in one effect by the organ of the voice. "The
larynx," he explains, "is a compound organ. It performs the function of
an air tube and of a musical instrument. The first is essential to respira-
tion, the second to speech. ... In the production of all immediately con-
secutive sounds the larynx acts by alternate pulsations and remission.
On this account, two heavy or accented syllables cannot be alternated
with each other while a heavy and light one can/' 33

Although Barber put great emphasis upon practice of individual
sounds" arid" exercises, he stated that an effective elocutionary training
could not depend upon a multiplicity of rules, and indicated that he was
not in favor of Walker's rules for inflection based upon grammatical
construction.34 He believed that Dr. Rush had succeeded Tn'*mafcing
elocution a scientific study because he had described the functions of
the voice and "listened to Nature as few ears have listened." He de-
fended the system against criticisms that it was mechanical by saying

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 187

that it showed the student the natural way of speaking effectively. In
a pamphlet in which he criticized the review of Rush's book which
appeared in the North American Review, he asks: "But is natural speak-
ing any other than a right use of the functions of the voice?" 35

There were many elocutionists in this early period who were devotees
of Rush and tried, as Barber did, to make his theories practical. Often
they gave credit to the English elocutionists, but their interest and pride
in the American scientist who had given them a physiological basis
upon which to develop their methods was always evident. A few of the
outstanding followers of Rush were: Merritt Caldwell, Andrew Corn-
stock, Henry N. Day, Samuel Gummere, Dr. E. D. North, James E.
Murdoch, William Russell, and George Vanderhoff.36 They represented
the fields of medicine, education, and the theatre.

William Russell taught in a variety of different schools, including
Yale^ Harvard, Princeton, Andover Seminary, Boston Public Latin
School, and Abbott Female Seminary. He lectured in teachers' insti-
tutes all over New England and established a seminary for teachers in
New Hampshire. Russell became the first editor of the American Jour-
nal of Education in 1826. In 1828 he assisted Dr. Porter, and again,
from 1842 to 1844, he taught in Andover Theological Seminary and in
the Theological Institute in East Windsor, Connecticut. In 1844 he
established the School of Practical Rhetoric and Oratory with James E.
Murdoch.37

Russell was a leader in education and wrote altogether some thirty
books, sixteen of them concerned with elocution. Murdoch was an actor
and reader, and together they made a good combination, the one inter-
ested primarily in improving the methods of teaching in the schools and
the other in improving the public performances of speakers, readers,
and actors. They were both indebted to Rush and Austin for much of
their elocutionary theory, although Russell mentions Walker, especially
in his early writings; and Murdoch discusses the contributions of Steele
and Walker in his Plea for the Spoken Language. Their chief contribu-
tion is found in Orthophony which was written while they were work-
ing together in the school.

Russell believed that the elocutionary training should start in the
lower schools. The methods that were most commonly used he thought
were top literal, and mechanical; "In many schools," he says, "the young
pupil never has his attention called, definitely or consciously, to the fact
that the letters of the alphabet are phonetic characters, the whole value
of which consists in the sounds which they represent; in many, he may

188 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

pass through the whole course of instruction without being once called
to practice the constituent elementary sounds of his own language; in
very many, there is no attempt made to exercise and develop, modify,
or cultivate, in any form, the voice itself." Russell criticized also the
mechanical pronunciation of words without any interpretation of the
meaning of the content read. Even with quite small children, he felt
that time should be spent in analyzing the meaning and pointing out
the significant words.38

Russell was convinced that elocution should be a part of educational
training but thought that it was usually taught very badly. He describes
the two extremes in bad instruction in the following manner:

We have, in our current modes of instruction, little choice between the
faults of style arising from what the indolent incline to term "a generous neg-
lect" through fear of "spoiling" what they claim as "nature," and those faults,
on the other hand, which are attributable to literal and mechanical modes of
cultivation, and consist in the obtrusion of arbitrary details and artificial
forms. Hence the results which characterize the one, in the gross errors of
slovenly and low habit, coarse and disgusting manner, uncouth effect, bawl-
ing vehemence, and gesticulating violence, of what is sometimes dignified
with the name of "popular oratory"; and hence the opposite traits of finical
taste, affected elegance, false refinement, and studied contrivances of effect,
which belong to perverted culture.39

Every teacher must have reasons for correcting the emphasis, the inflec-
tions, and pauses which a student uses in reading— these reasons,
according to Russell, are the rules.40

Elocution, in the late forties, had developed to the stage of opposing
theorists. It was not enough to convince educators that there was a
need for elocutionary training, but it was also necessary to defend the
methods used in teaching. Whately believed that rules vitiated style and
insisted that nature could be depended upon to produce effective
speech if the speaker or reader understood and was emotionally respon-
sive to the content itself. Russell placed Whately in the group of
extremists who did not believe in cultivation of the voice and says of
him: "A true and efficient friend of education, in other respects, thus
sides with the opponents of culture, by speaking from the preferences
of personal taste and arbitrary opinion, instead of the laws of analogy
and universal truth/' 41 Russell believed the rules he used to be the
"truest forms of nature embodied in practice."

Around the middle of the century, a kind of touchiness and "on the
defensive" attitude is noticeable. The itinerant teacher was not always
welcomed as he had been earlier. Russell was not allowed to continue
teaching at Harvard; he was cordially received in 1825, but twenty
years later was denied the privilege of teaching a class in elocution.42

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 189

Murdoch attributes the failure of their school in Boston to an announce-
ment made in the high schools barring boys trained in private schools
from entering the declamation contests.43 Rush and his followers were
disappointed that his system had not caught on as generally as they had
predicted.

The elocutionary movement, which had moved so rapidly, and per-
haps f addishly, in the first part of the century, was beginning to meet
antagonism in academic circles. It was becoming too much the per-
former's art and did not meet the needs of the students who were being
trained for the professions of law and the ministry.

James E. Murdoch may be said to represent that phase of elocu-
tionary training which was concerned with the training of public enter-
tainers—readers and actors. However, he did not restrict his work to
the~stage but devoted much of his time to teaching and lecturing. Mur-
(fodhTwks a devotee of the Rush system throughout his life. Although
he met Dr. Rush when his theories were first introduced, his interest
did not develop until advised by Edwin Forrest, the leading actor of
the day, to consult Rush for proper methods to improve the quality of
his voice. Murdoch records that he became intimately acquainted with
Dr. Rush, and received "rather in the capacity of a friend than of a
professional teacher, a practical exposition of the underlying principles
of his 'Philosophy of the Human Voice'. . . ." 44 In Murdoch's textbook,
Analytic Elocution., published in 1884, he affirms his earlier conclu-
sions: that training the voice was the most important part of elocution,
that the speaking voice may be developed in the same strength, beauty,
and flexibility as the singing voice, and that the Philosophy of the
Human Voice set forth the most complete system of vocal training.
Murdoch was a leader in the elocutionary movement for fifty years.

As an actor, Murdoch toured the country from Boston to San Fran-
cisco. He appeared with the leading actors of the day, Edwin Booth,
Edwin Forrest, and Fanny Kemble. According to his critics, he lacked
the fire of Forrest or Booth and was never a favorite in tragedy although
he excelled in comedy. The New York Herald for September 8, 1857,
probably analyzed his acting accurately in the following criticism:
"Every scene bears marks of careful study, and is elaborated to the mi-
nutest details. . . . Nothing is slurred over, nothing is overdone. . . . But
this is all. With great natural and acquired advantages Mr. Murdoch is
not a genius. He lacks the art that conceals art and is without that happy
inspiration that gives life to the creation." 45

It is also possible that Murdoch's career as an actor was not alto-

190 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

gether satisfactory to him and that he sought to supplement it through
teaching and lecturing. His health was not good and occasionally, as in
England, he was forced to cancel engagements. The fact is that he
retired from the stage from time to time and devoted himself whole-
heartedly to advancing the Rush system of elocution and to giving lec-
tures and readings. He became a very popular reader during the Civil
War. As soon as he heard that his favorite son had joined the Army, he
closed his engagement in the theatre in Pittsburgh and went to Wash-
ington. He gave patriotic readings in the hospitals to entertain the
soldiers, in both houses of Congress to inspire patriotism, and in many
Northern cities as benefit performances to raise money for the hospital
fund. Odell records programs of Shakespearian readings given by
Murdoch in New York as early as 1845, again in 1872 when he read
in the Tabernacle and brought to the program something of the "stateli-
ness of the old school," and as late as 1883.46

During the latter part of his life, Murdoch spent most of his time on
his farm in Ohio, yet he participated in a Shakespearian Festival in
Cincinnati Music Hall in 1883, playing Marc Antony and Hamlet.
According to the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, Mr. Murdoch could
be heard easily and his voice had the "same ring as of yore." 47 On May
22, 1889, Murdoch played Charles Surface to Mrs. John Drew's Lady
Teazle in a benefit performance of School for Scandal given "by the
citizens of Philadelphia to their representative actor." Mrs. Drew in her
autobiography testifies to his ability as an actor and to his charm as a
man. She says that he never imitated Forrest but was always himself
"which was rare in an American actor of that time." 48

Murdoch believed in training the voice but not according to such
arbitrary rules and prescribed grooves that the individual's character-
istic speech was changed to imitate that of the teacher. In The Stage
or Recollections of Actors and Acting, written after fifty years of expe-
rience, he deplored the neglect of training for actors :

A century ago elocution of a declamatory style was the prevailing dramatic
tone, but yielding to the changes of fashion, it gradually assumed the form
of what was termed natural speech; which in its turn, at the dictate of novelty
became eccentric, and however paradoxical it may appear, unnatural. Of late
years the elocution of the English and American stage, with but few excep-
tions, has been, no matter how offensive the term may be considered, rather
a matter of instinct than the result of intelligent vocal culture.49

In Analytic Elocution, Murdoch defines elocution as "the art of so
employing the Quality, Pitch, Force, Time, and Abruptness of the voice
as to convey the sense, sentiment, and passion of composition or dis-
course in the fullest and most natural manner, and at the same time with
the greatest possible gratification to the ear." 50 The student, according

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 191

to Murdoch, should first learn to control the vocal mechanism and then
to master the vocal elements.

Although Murdoch did not publish any books until between 1880-
1884, most of his elocutionary theory had appeared earlier in Orthoph-
ony which, according to the preface, derived from the Rush system
and presented the "vocal gymnastics" used by Murdoch in his teaching.
Both Orthophony and Analytic Elocution present the theories of Dr.
Rush in a simple, readable style. The innovations and additions which
can be credited to Russell and Murdoch indicate greater precision and
accuracy in isolating the sounds of the language and an awareness of
the necessity of fitting the methods to the student and his needs. The
following example shows their attention to the study of speech sounds:

ai, in air, though not recognized by Dr. Rush, nor by any other writers on
elocution, as a separate element from a, in ale, is obviously a distinct sound,
approaching to that of e, in end, but not forming so close a sound to the ear.
. . . o, in or, and o, in on, are apparently considered by Dr. Rush and by
Walker, as modifications of a, as in all. Admitting, however, the identity of
quality in these elements, their obvious difference in quantity, and in the
position and pressure of the muscles by which, as sounds, they are formed,
together with the precision and correctness of articulation demand a sepa-
rate place for them in the elementary exercises.

Further observation indicated the a sounds in awe, all, arm, and an were
not diphthongal as Rush believed. The final r was distinguished from
the initial r which was a harder sound, "executed by a forcible but brief
vibration of the tip of the tongue against the first projecting ridge of the
interior gum, immediately above the upper teeth." The list of the
elementary sounds as given in Orthophony is very similar to our present
classifications: oral and laryngeal sounds, a-11, a-rm, e-ve, oo-ze, e-rr,
e-nd, i-n, ai-r, u-p, o-r, o-n, a-le, i-ce, o-ld, ou-r, oi-1, u-se; labial sounds,
b-a-be, p-i-pe, m-ai-m, w-oe, v-al-ve, f-i-fe; palatic sounds, c-a-ke, g-ag,
y-e; dental sounds, d-i-d, t-en-t, th-in, th-ine, a-z-ure, pu-sh, cea-se,
z-one, j-oy, ch-ur-ch; aspirate sounds, h-e; nasal sounds, n-u-n, s-ing,
i-n-k; lingual sounds, 1-u-ll, r-ap, fa-r. Although m is not listed as a nasal,
the description of the sound indicates that Murdoch and Russell were
aware of its nasal quality: "The 'subtonic' m is articulated by a very
gentle compression of the lips, attended by a murmur in the head and
chest, resembling somewhat that which forms the character of the
'subtonic' b, but differing from it in the sound being accompanied by a
free, steady equable "expiration* through the nostrils." 51

The consideration of the quality of the voice was important to the
early elocutionists. The "improved" quality designated by Dr. Rush as
orotund was considered most desirable. Rush describes this quality as
"sub-sonorous" and states that it was rarely heard in ordinary speech

192 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and never in its highest excellence except when cultivated. Other quali-
ties which were heard in speaking and were useful especially in read-
ing and acting were: whispering, guttural, natural, and falsetto.52
Pectoral, nasal, and oral were terms used to describe the excess of a
particular kind of resonance.53

Of all the teachers thus far mentioned, Murdoch was the one most
interested in quality as an aspect of speech. He was eager to improve
the quality of his own speech so that he could successfully interpret
roles in both comedy and tragedy. As a result of this interest, he ana-
lyzed the voices of the actors he knew and observed many interesting
vocal characteristics. For example, he observed in some voices a "vocal
catch in the glottis." He attributes this peculiarity of speech to English
actors, specifically Garrick, who may have imitated King George III,
and was in turn imitated by Kean whose speech was then copied by
McCready and Forrest. He describes it as follows:

... a sudden catch of the glottis, which causes a short cough-like sound, to
be heard previous to the articulative movement of the voice. . . . This pecu-
liar organic act is the result of a dropping of the jaw and consequent depres-
sion of the larynx; it gives strength to the muscles which are called into play
and control the organs of vocality, thus enabling the speaker to execute that
abrupt movement by which he expels the vowel-sound from what may be
called the cavernous parts of the mouth, that space which includes the roots
of the tongue, the glottis, and pharynx. This deeply-aspirated quality of "the
voice is a strong element of expressive utterance of passionate language in
the drama.54

The description suggests the characteristic of the voice which Rush
termed abruptness, a term obviously devised to describe the stage
speech then in vogue but later discarded.

Murdoch saw a close relationship between breath control and vocal
quality. He explained very clearly the action of the diaphragm as "the
bellows of the vocal organs," and used the terms effusive, expulsive, and
explosive to designate the three forms of expiration. "The effusive
breath may be said to flow, the expulsive to rush, and the explosive to
burst into the outer air. These three forms of breathing, it will be found,
when converted into vocality, represent the three forms which lan-
guage assumes in its varied utterance from tranquility to passion/* 55

In A Plea for Spoken Language, published in 1883, and based on the
lectures which Murdoch had given on elocution, he states that although
elocutionists through a period of fifty years were indebted to Rush,
his principles had never been accepted entirely, and hence there had
been no uniformity of result. He speaks also of the "too prevalent idea
on the part of school authorities that elocution, as a special study, is
inexpedient; or worse that it cannot be successfully taught in connection

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 193

with the multifarious studies of the schools." 56 Nevertheless, Murdoch
and his co-worker, William Russell, did much to popularize the Rush
system, and their influence on the development of the elocutionary
movement itself is immeasurable. They were convinced that methods
of teaching which were based on scientific principles were in accord
with nature and, therefore, would allow the student to develop his own
characteristic speech and develop it to its maximum capacity.

',; vi

The^c:ho01 of ExPr®ssion, incorporated in 1888, is a fine example of
a nineteenth-century private school which is alive today. Its founder,
Samuel Silas Curry, through study and practice, evolved a philosophy
oPSocution' which had a firm basis in psychology. Although he at-
tempted to reconcile theories of elocution which seem to be con-
tradictory, he did succeed in establishing a practical and effective
method of teaching, usually known as the "think~the-thought" method.
-Brr Curry was born in 1847 in the mountains of Tennessee. He was
reared in a strict, religious home and encouraged to prepare for the
ministry. Following the usual pattern of education for the ministry, he
studied elocution along with theology. Since Boston University was
Curry's choice for his theological training, he began the study of elocu-
tion in the School of Oratory under Lewis B. Monroe, a student of
Delsarte. In 1873, Dr. Alexander Graham Bell's opening lecture at the
School of Oratory stimulated such an interest in the science of the voice
that Curry decided to become a teacher instead of a preacher. When
Dean Monroe died in 1879, Curry, who had completed his Masters
degree the year before, was asked to carry on the work. In 1880, the
University conferred the Ph.D. degree upon him; in 1883 he was made
Snow Professor of Oratory, and in this capacity organized special
classes in elocution. Five years later, the trustees allowed him to organ-
ize the institution which was called the School of Expression. Mrs.
Curry, former teacher and student under Monroe, taught with him and
together they made the school one of the most popular in the country.
Very soon the School of Expression offered three years of training and
an additional postgraduate year. Special courses were given for clergy-
men, teachers, and people with speech defects such as stammering.57
Many talented students attended the School of Expression; not a small
number were leaders in the reinstatement of speech in the college and
university curriculum in the early part of the twentieth century.

Of the elocutionists studied, Curry was perhaps the one most eager
to know all there was to be known about the functioning of the vocal
mechanism and to find the best methods of teaching students to use

194 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

speech effectively. He was not satisfied with any method then in use
in the teaching of delivery. He sampled them all, studying with many
teachers at home and abroad. In England, he studied with Emil Behnke
and Lenox Brown; in France, he took lessons from Regnier, head of the
National School of Acting; and in Italy he studied with Francesco
Lamperti, professor of singing at the Milan Conservatory. Although he
was critical of the theories of Delsarte, Curry states that he studied
with all the known teachers of that system. In the United States, he
studied with the following: Steele MacKaje, Alexander Graham Bell,
Alexander Melville Bell, and, of course, mwis B. Monroe.58

Because he had been exposed to so many different kinds of instruc-
tion, Curry's theories were eclectic and his writing often ambiguous.
Altogether, Curry wrote fourteen books. Province of Expression and
Foundations of Expression, published in 1891 and 1907,59 set forth
his philosophy as clearly as any of his writings. There is much repetition
and elaboration of idea in all of them. Although little credit is given to
the contemporary psychologists, their influence is marked. Curry's
greatest emphasis was upon an active, trained mind and imagination.
The necessity of working "within outward," of being a unified person
in which the mind stimulated the body to natural expression, and the
recognition of individual differences were all tenets of the Curry school.
There was something of the crusader about Dr. Curry. He recognized
the weakness of elocutionary training as he observed it in the late
nineteenth century and he proposed to reform it. He articulated the
principle that elocution should be primarily a training of the mind and
the development of an ability to think creatively.

Curry gave credit to Rush for laying the scientific foundation for the
study of the voice but contended that at least half of his system was
useless. Rush made no distinction between the normal and abnormal,
he said, and did not distinguish between the intentions of nature and
what was merely a bad habit:

Still he did analyze correctly the length of inflections, and while his "shock
of the glottis" is wrong and has been given up by the best teachers, yet that
there is a stress in the speaking voice, a radical and vanish different from the
singing voice, was clearly shown by him. Teaching, as he did, the importance
of analyzing into its fundamental nature the speaking voice, the special incor-
rect physical action in faults has been found and a more radical treatment of
defects made possible. The elements of melody having been partly explained,
men have been set to observe more carefully the phenomena of speech; so
that Rush's system has indirectly rendered important service in unfolding
knowledge which must be understood in improving delivery.60

The followers of Rush used teaching methods which Curry found to
be too unrepresentative and imitative. Some of the faults he found most

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 195

distressing and contradictory to nature were: all action was merely
gesture, grammatical structure dictated pauses and often inflections,
and delivery revealed a lack of freedom and originality. Curry ob-
served that mechanical methods had been tried and found wanting,
most clergymen and actors having discarded the Rush system as too
artificial and conventional. However, public readers, he stated, often
exhibited all the undesirable characteristics of the student trained in
this school. They showed no signs of "mental assimilation of the char-
acter," no indication of "dramatic instinct" but merely demonstrated
elocutionary tricks of the throat which were "untrue to nature." 61

Murdoch is mentioned by Curry as a good example of the mechanical
school which was based upon Rush principles. Curry criticized him
because he put too much emphasis upon the voice and because he con-
cerned himself with the artificial tones : orotund, guttural, and aspirate.
Examples are taken from Murdoch's textbook, Analytic Elocution, to
illustrate the methods to which Curry objected. Murdoch's direction for
reading the line, "Come back, come back, Horatius," states that it must
be read with a rising, discreet third. According to Curry, the sentence
could be read in fifty different ways but the one chosen is the most
foreign to the meaning. "It could only be read so," he says, "when a
man is trying to carry out a 'system' which is to him greater than
nature." 62

From a close study of Murdoch's theories of elocution, it is obvious
that he too was interested in following nature. He was devoted to the
Rush system not because of its mechanical aspects, but because he
thought it gave him a firm scientific base from which to work to
develop a natural delivery.

Curry did not approve of Whately's method and stated that the
purely natural method could not work unless the student had normal
speech. Whately's influence was detrimental to good speaking, accord-
ing to Curry, and had encouraged the speaker to follow wild impulses
thus "reducing all oratorical delivery to chaos." The indirect results of
Whately's work, however, Curry thought helpful because he criticized
the artificial methods and emphasized the importance of not placing
the mind on "mere modes of delivery." 63

The Delsarte System, Curry characterized as too artificial and specu-
lative: it was not founded upon nature but was an attempt to "place
upon nature a pre-conceived artificial conception." Whereas Murdoch
held that pantomime should be in the background so that the voice
could predominate, Curry states that Delsarte gave pantomime the
most important place. "Neither is right," says Curry. "The great center
of consciousness must be upon thought and action of the mind, and
these two natural languages voice and action having a great element

196 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

of spontaneity, must not be brought too much into the foreground of

consciousness/' 64

On the other hand, Curry praised Delsarte as the most original in-
vestigator of the century and listed those parts of his theory which he
had found helpful in evolving his own philosophy of speech. He makes
special mention of; the preliminary training or the attuning of the whole
body, the fact that Delsartian methods were always based upon prin-
ciples, the belief that pantomime belonged to the whole body and was
not restricted to gesture, and finally, the theory that there is an inter-
relationship of "co-existent and co-essential elements/* 65

Because of the association of the word elocution with the training
and theories Curry found unsatisfactory, he used the word expression
instead. To him it was a much bigger and more meaningful word. One
cannot help wishing that he might have reinstated the original word
elocution with its proper connotation. Yet the word expression he did
use in a special way to indicate his philosophy of speech training. He
defines it thus: "Expression implies cause, means, and effect. It is a
natural effect of a natural cause, and hence is governed by all the laws
of nature's processes. The cause is in the mind, the means are the voice
and the body/5 66

From his wide background of experience, Curry articulated a philoso-
phy of speech which resembled that of the first teacher mentioned,
Ebenezer Porter. But because of his vantage point in the century, he
was able to go beyond any of the others in charting methods of instruc-
tion which would be effective. His methods were eclectic and repre-
sented a culmination of the work of many conscientious, enthusiastic,
and progressive elocutionists. Curry's belief that man must function as
a unified whole made it impossible in good delivery for the voice to
overbalance the action, or for the outward expression to be detached
from the mental analysis of the material to be read. Communicating
one s thoughts and feelings implied for Curry merely the deepening of
natural processes. Following James' psychology, he stated that thinking
consisted of first, concentration upon one point, and second, a leap of
the mind to another point. Thus the need for training in making transi-
tions and in using the pause effectively.67

While all of the older elocutionists mentioned in this chapter stressed
the need for thought and feeling in the interpretation of literature,
Curry was the first one to devise exercises for mental training as a nec-
essary part of the teaching program. Training the mind, according to
Curry, should supersede training of the voice and body.

Curry believed in a three-way interactionism between mind, voice,
and body. Voice and action, he often reiterated, must not be left to acci-
dent but be developed into a flexible mechanism which will ade-

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 197

quately express the mind or soul of the speaker. Vocal training he care-
fully distinguished from vocal expression as the "establishment of
normal conditions of the body and voice." As did many of the earlier
teachers, Curry placed great emphasis upon proper breathing and
breathing exercises. He also advocated the use of exclamations for prac-
tice because they were closely associated with action and spontaneously
established natural conditions of speaking and breathing.68

Training of the body as a whole was one of Curry's principles. Ac-
cording to his students, he devoted some time to gymnastic exercises
of Delsartian design. The "decomposing exercises" were to relax the
muscles so that the body could be organized around a center. The
principle of functioning as a whole was never disregarded, and the
exercises were always considered merely practice to enable the speaker
to respond naturally and normally to mental stimulation.69

In vocal training, the term tone-color was used often by Curry; he
considered it very important and difficult to attain. He defines it in
Foundations of Expression as "the modulation of the overtones of the
human voice by imagination and feeling." To discover the presence of
tone-color, Curry suggests that the student read two very different
passages—one didactic, the other imaginative and sympathetic. The
difference in the voice— its pitch, pause, inflection, and especially its
quality— gives the reading tone-color.70

Curry set very high requirements for the teacher— he must inspire his
students as well as train them. The teacher of expression should be an
educated man, he maintained, because he must be able to "penetrate
the deepest needs of his students"; he must also understand "the effect
upon the personality of all subjects." 71 His breadth of culture must be
practical— not only scientific but literary and artistic as well. Without a
love of art and literature, Curry felt it would be impossible for the
teacher to inspire his students and stimulate the creative faculties of
their minds. From all evaluations of his work, Curry seems to have
measured up well to his own criteria.

VII

The nineteenth-century elocutionists made significant contributions
to the field of speech'educatioiu As a group, they showed an amazing
amount of vitality and originality, As teachers and theorists they fitted
into the pattern of education ^HcK xesponded to the increased inter-
est in science, emphasizing first the physiological and later the psy-
chological aspect of»speedi*«Becau$e of their efforts, elocution became
a part of the educational plan which enlarged the program to include
practice in writipg aacjf speaking English in addition to similar courses

198 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

in the classical languages. Later in the century, when, because of its
tendency to become artificial and exhibitionary, it lost its place in the
curricula of many of the institutions of higher learning, the study of
elocution was fostered in private schools by teachers like Samuel Silas

Curry.

Although some elocutionists declared the subject to be distinct from
the study of rhetoric and more closely related to science than to any
other subject, rhetoricians emphasized delivery during this century as
an integral part of speech-making. The orator, lawyer, minister, and
actor were all concerned with and characterized by their manner of
speaking. Since the speech of the average American was indistinctly
articulated and his taste in public speakers demanded a kind of exag-
gerated and florid quality, there was a great demand, especially during
the first half of the nineteenth century, for elocutionary training in both
the lower schools and the colleges. Many of the teachers of elocution
were not on the regular faculties of these institutions but were itinerant
teachers. Often they established themselves in a community and gave
lessons in a number of schools in the area; sometimes they started pri~
vate schools of speech. From their writings, it appears that they were
interested in developing a science of speech, in correcting speech
defects, in isolating the speech sounds, and in developing skills in
reading and speaking. Later teachers have produced more specialized
books in these same areas, but the early textbook writers did the spade
work for the specialists.

The private schools multiplied during the century. Murdoch and
Russell founded the School of Practical Rhetoric and Oratory (one of
the first) in 1844, in Boston. Later the same city was to boast three
of the best-known schools: the School of Expression, Emerson College
of Oratory, and the Leland Powers School. Charles Wesley Emerson
founded his school in 1891. He based his methods of vocal training
upon the four stages of the natural development of the mind: the
colossal, the melodramatic, the realistic, and the suggestive. Delsarte's
methods were used in training the body. Leland Powers was a student
of Dr. Curry and subscribed to his methods of teaching. In Chicago
there were three equally famous schools: Phillips School of Oratory,
Columbia School of Expression, and the School of Speech of North-
western University founded by Robert McLean Cumnock. Arthur E.
Phillips was famous for his use of natural or tone drills—a method
based upon the value of paraphrasing for a clearer understanding of
the material read. Mention should also be made of the Byron King
School of Oratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which was established
in 1888. All these schools deserve special credit for carrying on the
study of elocution and other phases of speech training when the edu-

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT

199

cational institutions took little responsibility for this kind of education.

Porter, Barber, Russell, Murdoch, and Curry were leaders in the
movement to make the study of vocal delivery an important part of edu-
cation. They defined it as the use of voice and action to interpret ideas
and emotions but were more interested in the development of the voice
than in any other aspect of the speaking situation. Nevertheless, these
teachers did not neglect the relationship of body to mind, and the
importance of good health to the speaker.

Following the example of the English elocutionists and lexicogra-
phers, there was a definite emphasis upon individual speech sounds,
and articulation exercises were the usual introduction to the study of
elocution. There was a special emphasis on the analysis of vocal quali-
ties which was not found in the teaching of elocution in England.

The early American elocutionists continued the study of inflection
which had so engrossed the teachers and writers of the previous cen-
tury; yet they did not follow the theory of Walker that inflection was
always related to grammatical construction. The followers of Rush
found inflectional changes similar to pitch changes in music and used
many musical terms to describe the melody and cadences of speech.
Notations that were used derived from musical notations and were
similar to those used by Steele in Prosodia Rationalis,

The most influential elocutionists, if they can be selected according
to the popularity of their textbooks, believed that elocutionary train-
ing depended upon rules, and did not agree with Whately that all rules
were inimical to spontaneous and emotionally sensitive speaking and
reading. They were aware of the two extremes in the theory of training
and tried to stay between the two. The importance of understanding
the content of the material and of feeling the emotion inherent in it,
they all agreed, was of first importance, but the vocal mechanism must
be so disciplined that it could respond properly.

Although the private school of elocution was destined to carry most
of the responsibility for this kind of training in the latter part of the
century, the teachers themselves transmitted the influence of the early
elocutionists to twentieth-century speech education in America. For ex-
ample, Thomas C. Traeblood, S. S. Hamill, Robert I. Fulton, and John
R. Scott, who were pioneers in founding present-day speech depart-
ments, were all students of James E. Murdoch.72 And over ten thousand
students have studied in the Curry School, among them such famous
teachers as: Lee Emerson Bassett, Smiley Blanton, Sara Stinchfield
Hawk, Azubah Latham, and Gertrude Johnson.

The representative elocutionists considered in this chapter were
agreed that an art must rest upon a science. Although ffiey iised differ-
ent meffi&as/t&ey were all working to perfect a delivery that would

200 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

reveal effectively thought and emotion. At the end of the century,
because psychological inquiries had made mental processes clearer, the
method of "thinking-the-thought" before reading became the most
popular method. However, it is not the only one that persisted in
twentieth-century teaching of delivery. Many of the theories, methods,
and exercises which were advanced by the earlier elocutionists are to
be found in modern textbooks.

Notes

1. Henry B. Parkes, The American Experience (New York, 1947), pp. 149,
187-188.

2. Henry Steele Comager, The American Mind (New Haven, 1950), p. 24.

3. Foster R. Dulles, America Learns to Play (New York, 1940), pp. 110-111.

4. Warren Guthrie, "The Development of Rhetorical Theory in America, 1635-
1850," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1940, p. 244.

5. Thomas E. Coulton, "Trends in Speech Education in American Colleges
1835-1935," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1935, pp. 70, 80.

6. William Russell, "Cultivation of the Expressive Faculties," American Journal
of Education, III (1858), 58.

7. George R. MacMinn, The Theatre of the Golden Era in California (Cald-
well, Ida., 1941 ),ch. I.

8. George C. D. Odell, Annals of the New York Stage (New York, 1928), IV,
586-587.

9. Mary Margaret Robb, Oral Interpretation of Literature in American Colleges
and Universities (New York, 1941), pp. 131-132.

10. Ebenezer Porter, Analysis of Principles of Rhetorical Delivery as Applied in
Reading and Speakmg (Andover, 1836), p. 1.

11. R. Clyde Yarbrough, "Horniletical Theory and Practice o£ Ebenezer Porter,"
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1942, p. 140.

12. Porter, Analysis, p. vii.

13. Ibid., pp. 23, 25.

14. Ibid., pp. 109-110.

15. Ibid., p. viii.

16. Ibid., p. x.

17. Ebenezer Porter, The Rhetorical Reader (New York, 1835), pp. 28-38.

18. Porter, Analysis, p. 41.

19. Ibid., pp. 93, 103.

20. Jonathan Barber, Practical Treatise on Gesture (Cambridge, 1831)j William
Russell, American Elocutionist (Boston, 1844), p. 200.

21. Porter, Analysis, pp. 144-147.

22. Lyman Matthews, Memoir of the Life and Character of Ebenezer Porter,
D.D. (Boston, 1837), p. 254.

23. Henry K. Rowe, History of Andover Theological Seminary (Newton, Mass.,
1933), p. 57.

24. General Catalogue of the Theological Seminary, Andover, Massachusetts,
1808-1908 (Boston, 1908), pp. 4, 20.

25. Guthrie, op. cit, p. 200.

26. North American Review, XXIX (1829), 38-67.

27. Barber, Grammar of Elocution (New Haven, 1830), pp. 13, 19.

28. James Rush, The Philosophy of the Human Voice (Philadelphia, 1833), p.
xlii.

29. James E. Murdoch, A Plea for Spoken Language (Cincinnati, 1883), p. 101.

30. Barber, Grammar, pp. 17-18.

THE ELOCUTIONARY MOVEMENT 201

31. Frederick W. Haberman, "The Elocutionary Movement in England, 1750-
1850," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell, 1947, p. 176.

32. Jonathan Barber, Exercises in Reading and Recitation (York, Pa., 1825).

33. Barber, Grammar, pp. 125-126.

34. Ibid., p. 168.

35. Barber, Strictures on Article II of the North American Review for July, 1829
(New Haven, 1829), p. 9.

36. Henry N. Day, Art of Elocution (New Haven, 1844), Samuel Gummere, A
Compendium of the Principles of Elocution on the Basis of Dr. Rush's Philosophy
of the Human Voice (Philadelphia, 1857); Dr. E. D. North, Practical Speaking as
Taught at Yale College (New Haven, 1846); W. Russell and J. E. Murdoch, Or-
thophony (Boston, 1845), George Vanderhoff, The Art of Elocution (New York, 1847).

37. Dictionary of American Biography (New York, 1935) XVI, 250.

38. Russell, "Cultivation o£ the Expressive Qualities," Am. J. Ed., pp. 327-329.

39. Ibid., pp. 332-333.

40. Russell, American Elocutionist,, 4th ed. ( Boston, 1846 ) , p. 5.

41. See "Cultivation of the Expressive Faculties," Am. J. Ed., pp. 333-334;
Richard Whately, Elements of Rhetoric (Boston, 1851); J. W. S. Hows, Practical
Elocutionist (New York, 1849).

42. Loc. cit.

43. Murdoch, Plea, pp. 110-111.

44. Ibid., pp. 106, 108, 109.

45. Odell, Annals, VII, 6; Roberta Fluitt White, "The Acting Career of James
Edward Murdoch," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State, 1945, p. 36.

46. Odell, Annals, V, 144; IX, 334-335; XII, 342.

47. White, pp. 105-108.

48. Mrs. John Drew, "Autobiographical Sketch of Mrs. John Drew," Scribners
(November, 1899), XXVI, 566-568.

49. Murdoch, Stage, pp. 43, 45.

50. Murdoch, Analytic Elocution (Cincinnati, 1884), p. 11.

51. Russell, Orthophony, pp. 17-29.

52. Rush, Philosophy, p. 162.

53. Murdoch, Analytic Elocution, p. 10.

54. Murdoch, Stage, pp. 96-98.

55. Murdoch, Analytic Elocution, pp. 12, 21.

56. Murdoch, Plea, pp. 9, 12.

57. Poems by S. S. Curry, ed. Nathan Haskell Dole (Boston, 1922), pp. 1-2.

58. Cyclopedia of American Biography, X, 160-161.

59. Samuel Silas Curry, Province of Expression (Boston, 1891); Foundations
of Expression (Boston, 1907).

60. Curry, Province, p. 325.

61. Ibid., pp. 310-325.

62. Ibid., p. 316.

63. Ibid., pp. 333-334.

64. Ibid., p. 350.

65. Ibid., p. 358.

66. Samuel Silas Curry, Lessons in Vocal Expression (Boston, 1895), p. 310.

67. Ibid., p. 19.

68. Curry, Foundations, p. 66.

69. M. Oclo Miller, "The Psychology of Dr. S. S. Curry as Revealed by His
Attitude Toward the Mind-Body Problem" unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Iowa, 1929, p. 41.

70. Curry, Foundations, p. 159.

71. Curry, Province, pp. 326, 418.

72. Thomas C. Trueblood, "A Chapter on the Organization of College Courses
in Public Speaking," Quarterly Journal of Speech Education, XII (February, 1926),
3-4.

Steele MacKaye and the
Delsartian Tradition

CLAUDE L. SHAVER

The work of Francois Delsarte, French teacher of vocal music and
operatic acting in Paris from 1839 until 1871, was of great significance
in speech training and the theatre in late nineteenth-century America,
Although Delsarte was never in the United States and never published
his theories in any form, the so-called "Delsarte System of Expression"
was probably the most popular method of speech training in the United
States during the thirty years from 1870 until 1900.

In spite of the popularity and prominence of the Delsarte system, no
adequate formulation of its principles and practices was ever made and
American teachers and actors were left largely in the dark regarding
the basic principles of the system. Delsarte himself published nothing
in his own name.

Many books and magazine articles were written during the thirty
years of Delsarte's popularity, each purporting to present the "true"
Delsarte system, yet none of these ever received the unqualified support
of more than a few of those who called themselves "Delsartians." In the
two decades from 1880 to 1900 the Delsarte system was a subject of
perennial dispute, as witnessed by the large number of articles defend-
ing and attacking the system that appeared in Werner's Magazine, the
leading speech publication of the period, and the numerous speeches
pro and con as reported in the Proceedings of the National Association
of Elocutionists*

In the absence of any authoritative statement of the Delsarte system,
it was inevitable that the system should be siezed upon, expanded and
distorted to almost absurd lengths. Charles Bickford, writing in The
Voice? commented:

Breathing exercises, as old as-well, as old as I am,-the Worcester and Web-
ster "Key to Pronunciation," Guilmette contortions, light gymnastics, numer-
ous systems of useful and ever popular calisthenics, Dr. Rush's theories, les-

202

STEELE MAC KAYE 203

sons from Murdoch and Russell, stage tricks and traditions which have been
handed down for generations, and a thousand other things in heaven and
earth not dreamt of in Delsarte's philosophy, have been tied on and sailed
up on the tail of the dear old Frenchman's kite as if they belonged to it.2

The dilettantism which afflicted the system was well expressed by L. P.
writing in "Letter Box" in The Voice:

I was interested in John Howard's remarks upon the Delsarte method, for I
confess I do "leave the pages of the Delsarte method with a puzzled and dubi-
ous countenance," and wish that it could be simplified in some way. I have
finally persuaded my husband to allow me to teach it as I enjoy the "art,"
and it is a great source of amusement to me, and so much more satisfactory
than afternoon tea-parties or church-fairs.3

In commenting on the teaching of the Delsarte system at Chautauqua,
New York, by Mrs. Emily Bishop, Elsie M. Wilbor wrote, "As presented
there, the system is on a plane with the Swedish or any other purely
gymnastic drill . . . ," and commented later in the same article, "One
point on which I take issue with Mrs. Bishop is her statement that Del-
sarte work reduces flesh, but will not make it. . . " 4 Here the Delsarte
system had become a reducing method; the April, 1889, issue of
Werners Voice Magazine and several subsequent issues, carried an
advertisement for "The Delsarte corset"!

In this welter of unauthorized books, misunderstandings, distortions,
and quackeries, only one man was considered able to give an adequate
formulation of Delsarte's principles. The man was Steele MacKaye, the
man who had originally introduced the Delsarte theory to America.
S. S. Curry wrote in 1891:

Mr. Steele MacKaye is thoroughly competent to give to the world an outline
of the system of Delsarte, but he has allowed himself to be engrossed with
other things, and neglected to give to the world an adequate presentation of
the method of the master who so loved and honored him.5

This paper deals primarily with Steele MacKaye, the introduction of
the Delsarte system into America and MacKaye's contribution to the
system; secondarily it treats of other early figures in the movement,
chiefly the Rev. William R. Alger, Unitarian minister, and Lewis B.
Monroe, teacher, and the most influential book of the period, Delsarte
System of Oratory. As an introduction to this material, a brief life of
Delsarte and a summary of his "system" is given.

Frangois Alexandre Nicholas Cheri Delsarte was born in Solesme,
France, November 19, 1811. 6 Delsarte's early childhood was spent in
poverty and privation, according to various factual and fictional biogra-

204 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

pMes.7 At the age of nine, he and his younger brother were taken to
Paris by his mother, where she and the brother both soon died. In some
way Delsarte became acquainted with a musician by the name of Pere
Bambini, who became his first teacher. Delsarte also studied with a
M. Deshayes and a M. Choron. From 1826 to 1830 he attended the Con-
servatoire. He sang at FOpera-Comique, the Ambigu, and the Varietes,
but was not a success in the theatre. He later became choir director at the
church of the Abbe Chatel.8

The year 1839 is given as the date when Delsarte opened his school,
but that he taught before this date is indicated in the biographies of two
of his pupils, Darcier and Hermann-Leon. However, it is probably true
that he did not open a school formally until 1839. There still exists a
large book with the title School of Moral and Scientific Singing, which
contains a "constitution" for this first school, and considerable material
to indicate that the speculative philosophy on which the system was
founded was well advanced and the basic structure completed by this
time.9

Delsarte's ability as a teacher was praised by such critics as W.
Warner, writing in L'Eclair,10 Escudier in La France Musicale^ and
Jules Janin in Journal des Debats.12

An examination of recently available material, consisting of some
material in Delsarte's own handwriting, and more in the form of notes
of his pupils, reveals some rather startling things.13 First, Delsarte was
not a speech teacher in any real sense of the word, but was, primarily,
a teacher of instrumental and vocal music and an opera coach. In his
later years, he seems to have coached some legitimate acting and to
have offered instruction to clergymen. Recitation was used, but only
as a method of teaching acting. Second, his system was not exactly a
system of teaching either speech or music, but was a pseudo-philosophy,
claiming to be a science, which organized all arts and sciences accord-
ing to a plan which was based, in essence, on orthodox Catholic doc-
trine. In a period in which science was pushing forward rapidly, Del-
sarte's "System'* was essentially a throwback to a conservative orthodox
view under the guise of being a science. The "science" on which the
system is founded is, however, purely speculative. In a brief summary
of the system written by MacKaye in French, the "science" which would
reveal the fixed laws of art is stated as "the possession of a criterion of
examination against which no fact can protest." This criterion Delsarte
found in the Holy Trinity. All tilings, according to the system, show a
trinitary organization. For example, any object has height, width, thick-
ness; time consists of past time, present time, future time, etc.:

The science of Mons. Delsarte consists of directing the light of this criterion
of examination on all things, and in virtue of this idea of the trinity, to dis-

STEELE MAC KATE 205

cover their intimate (interior) organization, and to explain the raison d'etre
of their external products. On this examination and on the science thus estab-
lished, he bases all his art.14

By the use of this "system" of trinitary division, Delsarte organized
all arts and sciences into an educational system and into a teaching
method. Specifically, this concept was applied to music, particularly
vocal music, and acting, the arts which Delsarte knew best. This trini-
tary division arises from the Holy Trinity, and each member of the Holy
Trinity governs one of the elements of the trinity of any object or
idea. Thus man is divided into life, mind, and soul. These are governed
respectively by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Life, mind, and
soul are expressed by certain agents: vocal sound (apart from words)
expresses life, words express mind, movement expresses soul. This con-
cept of movement as the expression of soul possibly accounts for the
emphasis put upon gesture and pantomime by American Delsartians.
It seems unlikely that Delsarte placed any more emphasis on the physi-
cal aspects of his system than on the vocal, but in America, the physical
aspects became the basis of the system and the Delsarte system became,
essentially, a system of physical culture.

By another principle, the "principe du circumincession," which Curry
translated as "principle of intertwining," the body expresses not only
soul, but, to a degree, both life and mind.15 Thus arises the familiar
trinitary division of the zones of gesture and movement. Each of these
major zones is divided into three minor zones, making in all nine zones
of gesture. In addition to the zones, the movements of the body express
the three essences of being, i.e., life, mind, and soul.

There are three basic forms of movement: movement about a center,
called normal, which is vital and expresses life; movement away from
a center, called eccentric, which is mental and expresses mind; move-
ment toward a center, called concentric, which is moral and expresses
soul. These three forms of movement mutually influence each other and
thus give rise to nine forms, normo-normal, normo-eccentric, normo-
concentric, eccentro-normal, eccentro-eccentric, eccentro-concentric,
concentro-normal, concentro-eccentric, concentro-concentric. The forms
of movement give rise to nine attitudes or states, and also to nine inflec-
tions or movements. All gestures, movements, or attitudes may be classi-
fied under these forms and each gesture, movement, or attitude has a
special significance.

The vocal apparatus is also triune, and each element of the trinity
expresses one of the essences of being, life, mind, or soul. Speech arises
from three agents: the inciting agent, the lungs, which is the vital or
life principle of sound; the resonating agent, the mouth, which is the
intellectual or mind principle of sound; the vibratory agent, the larynx,

206 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

which is the moral or soul principle of sound. All vocal effects, arising
from these fundamental agents express life, mind, or soul, and may be
so classified. In addition, the Delsarte system re-evaluates language
according to the principle of the trinity and assigns degrees of value
to the various parts of speech varying from one to nine,

Delsarte's "Cours D'Esthetique Appliquee" seems to have consisted of
a series of public lectures and demonstrations on his theories, and a
course of private instruction. The public lectures were generally nine
or ten 16 in number, given weekly, and seem to have consisted of two
parts, a lecture on some aspect of the system, often based on a chart or
diagram, and a practical demonstration by pupils, and, at times, by
Delsarte himself. Occasionally after the lecture there was a discussion.
Angelique Arnaud, writing in 1882, said:

Some years before his death Delsarte substituted for his concerts, lectures
in which he explained his scientific doctrines and his philosophy of art. He
also supplied the place of song by the recitation of certain fables selected from
La Fontaine.17

In a lecture delivered before the Curry School of Expression in Boston
in November, 1898, Mrs. Steele MacKaye described the morning lessons
in much the same terms;

The first part of the morning was given to the exposition of philosophy-the
explanation of some theory, or chart After the exposition came the prac-
tical part: the recitation of a fable, a scene from a play, or perhaps a song,
any of which was rendered sometimes by a pupil, sometimes by Delsarte
himself.18

In addition to these lectures or lessons, Delsarte gave individual
instruction. There is no material available to indicate just what
happened in these sessions, which were held daily, but presumably Del-
sarte taught his pupils specific songs and roles and worked on articula-
tion, movement, gesture, etc. Whether Delsarte used any kind of gym-
nastic exercises in his teaching was much argued later by American
Delsartians. The scant evidence available would indicate that he did
not. This question is discussed later in this paper.

A recent study of Delsarte's pupils has revealed that of fifty-four
who can be classified, twenty-two were singers, twelve were instru-
mentalists, seven were actors, five were writers, four were composers,
two were lawyers and three were painters.19 Some of these pupils were
well known; others are merely names. Of the entire list of pupils, only
one, Steele MacKaye, is definitely known to be an American.20

STEELE MACKAYE 207

James Steele MacKaye, playwright, actor, director, and theatre in-
ventor, was born in Buffalo, New York, on June 6, 1842. 21 He first
studied painting, but eventually decided on the theatre as a career. In
preparation for this career, MacKaye decided to study acting in Paris.
He went to Paris with the intention of studying at the Conservatoire,
but was persuaded to study with M. Delsarte instead.

MacKaye began his studies in October, 1869, and lessons continued
daily until July, 1870. 22 So rapid was MacKaye's progress, so quickly
did he grasp the essentials of the system, and so brilliantly did he apply
his knowledge, that after a few months he was accepted as a co-worker
as well as a pupil and began doing a part of the teaching:

. . . within five months of their first meeting, at Delsarte's own desire and re-
quest, Mr. MacKaye was himself lecturing and teaching in Delsarte's Cours,
with a success which aroused as much enthusiasm as astonishment in Del-
sarte's "lovable, loving and generous nature." 23

Clearly Delsarte considered MacKaye a brilliant pupil and thus was
established a close and significant relationship of disciple and master—
a relationship understood and appreciated by both parties. MacKaye
became Delsarte's chosen successor— the son who was to carry on the
work of the master.24

This close relationship was abruptly terminated by the chaos of the
Franco-Prussian war of 1871 and the resulting siege of Paris— a chaos
which drove MacKaye back to America and Delsarte into refuge in his
native village of Solesme where he lived in dire poverty on the charity
of a cousin.25 MacKaye, returning to America fired with enthusiasm for
the Delsarte system, immediately began making plans for the intro-
duction of the Delsarte system into America. Very shortly, however,
word reached him of Delsarte's destitute condition. Two new friends,
Rev. William R. Alger (the biographer of Edwin Forrest) and Prof.
Lewis B. Monroe (Dean of the School of Oratory of Boston University)
suggested to MacKaye that he give a lecture on Delsarte, the proceeds
of which would go to Delsarte's relief.26 MacKaye accepted this sug-
gestion with typical enthusiasm and immediately set about preparing
the lecture and arranging for its presentation. At the same time Mac-
Kaye and his friends thought of bringing Delsarte to America to found
a great school of art similar to his school in Paris.

On March 21, 1871, MacKaye delivered at the St. James Hotel, Bos-
ton, his first lecture on Delsarte. This was the first time that the name
and system of Francois Delsarte was presented to the American pub-
lic.27 In April the lecture was twice repeated in Boston at the Tremont
Temple to large audiences and was given at Harvard University on
April 21, 1871, with Henry W. Longfellow as the chairman.28 Later,

208 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

MacKaye lectured at Steinway Hall in New York twice in April and
several times in May. He also lectured in Brooklyn at the invitation of
Henry Ward Beecher.29

Thus MacKaye spread the gospel of Delsarte. These lectures, and the
impress of MacKaye's vivid personality, evidently made a profound
impression, and the scheme for bringing Delsarte to America neared
completion.

In the interim, Rev. Alger had gone abroad intending to see Del-
sarte. He was never to carry out this intention, however, for Delsarte
died July 22, 1871, before Alger reached Paris.30 With Delsarte s death
the great incentive was gone, and the plan for an American "Cours
D'Esthetique Appliquee" lost its vital force.

MacKaye lectured widely in the ensuing years. There is record of
many lectures; many have been unreported. During the autumn and
winter of 1874, MacKaye was on an extensive lecture tour under the
aegis of James Redpath.31 He had an engagement of twenty nights in
Boston alone. Undoubtedly, Monroe and Alger were instrumental in
setting up this series. Nine of these lectures were given under the gen-
eral heading "Philosophy of Emotion and Its Expression." The lectures
were listed as follows:

I. The Mystery of Emotion
II. Gesture As a Language

III. The Philosophy of Laughter

IV. The Mystic Law of Beauty

V. The Marvels of the Human Face and Hand
VI. Nature's Art
VII. Masks and Faces of Society
VIII. The Emotional Significance of the Serpent
IX. The Philosophy of Love 32

For several months MacKaye appeared before audiences in many cities
from Maine to Pennsylvania. Later in the winter he also seems to have
lectured in the Middle West.33

In the spring of 1877, MacKaye established a school of expression at
23 Union Square, New York City.34 Beginning on January 10 of the
same year, he delivered a series of lectures on the Delsarte system at
the studio of Mrs. George Hall, 33 East 17th Street, New York City.35
Presumably Mrs. Hall was a teacher of elocution. The lectures were
given at four o'clock in the afternoon. Some twenty-three of these lec-
tures have been preserved in manuscript. There were at least thirty-four
lectures delivered, as the last preserved manuscript is numbered thirty-
four, although by its nature it seems not to be a concluding or final
lecture. These lectures bear such titles as: "Philosophy—Aim of Artist,
Nature of Perception/' etc.; ''The Trinities— Love, Wisdom and Power";

STEELE MACKAYE 209

"Feet—Primary Expressions and Attitudes," etc. The manuscripts give
a reasonably clear picture of MacKaye's interpretation of the Delsarte
system and of his teaching of it.

In 1878 MacKaye presented a series of twelve lectures on the Philoso-
phy of Expression in the Boston School of Oratory of Boston University
of which Lewis B. Monroe was the founder and Dean. The lectures
were attended by the entire school. This series seems to have been the
most important of all MacKaye's lectures for they seem to have in-
fluenced directly the teaching of elocution or expression. Among the
students in attendance were S. S. Curry and Franklin H. Sargent, the
founder of the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. Many years later
Sargent wrote:

... I took rapid notes, filling my notebook, and when, at the close, Steele
MacKaye left us, I found myself left alone in the hall, meditating on the pro-
fundity of his discourse, overflowing for me with revelations. As I walked in
the Dean's private office, I asked: Prof. Monroe, what is this? And I shall
never forget the patriarchal old man, with his white hair, and glowing face,
as he looked up at me and said, My boy, this is the key to the universe! 3G

Echoes of these lectures appear in many articles in Werners Magazine.
The lectures probably did more to set the pattern of Delsartism than
any of MacKaye's other writings and addresses.

During the following years MacKaye continued to instruct private
pupils and to make an occasional lecture tour. On several occasions he
attempted to found a school similar to the "Cours D'Esthetique Appli-
quee," but his efforts came to naught as other interests drew him away.
He also planned to write a number of volumes on the Delsarte system,3 r
but aside from several articles in Werners Magazine 3S nothing was
written, or at least published. His death occurred February 25, 1894. 39

In America the Delsarte system became primarily a system of physi-
cal training. An editorial in Werners Voice Magazine in December,
1892, commented: "We are the first to present in a concise and compre-
hensive manner the practical workings, as well as the theoretical
principles, of the various systems of physical culture, including the Del-
sarte, the Swedish, the German, the Eclectic, etc." 40 The central ele-
ment of the Delsarte training lay in "harmonic gymnastics," a series of
exercises of which relaxing or "decomposing" exercises seemed to be the
most important. It seems difficult to determine whether these exercises
were a part of the system as taught by Delsarte or whether they were
added wholly or in part by MacKaye. In an early lecture MacKaye
credited Delsarte with a system of exercises:

Delsarte has an adequate background for the basis of his system. His long
study enables him to extend to the student of art three gifts, "(1) a simple but
philosophical and effective method for the treatment and study of Ms sub-

210 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION., AND SPEECH

ject, (2) a profound knowledge of the aesthetics, elements and principles of
his art, and (3) a system of significant exercises which will develop to the
utmost his executive power and give him the greatest command of his instru-
ment." 41

Later, however, MacKaye claimed credit for the development of the
exercises and insisted that they were not a part of the system as taught
by Delsarte. Writing in Werner's Voice Magazine for July, 1892, Mrs.
Steele MacKaye said; "The whole system of aesthetic or harmonic gym-
nastics is, from the first word to the last, entirely of Mr. MacKaye's
invention/' She continued:
... In his first lectures, Mr. MacKaye never dreamed of separately cataloguing

his own discoveries or inventions Such of Mr. MacKaye's discoveries as he

was able to show Delsarte were glady accepted by him, as supplementing and
developing the practical side of his own work. As they had thus become a
recognized portion of the methods of the new science Mr, MacKaye was so
eager to introduce ... he made no attempt to separate his own contributions
from the body of Delsarte's work.

But Mr. MacKaye has now been working and studying for 20 years, and dur-
ing that time he has been constantly developing the Science and the Philos-
ophy of Expression; at the same time building up and perfecting that system
of psycho-physical training which to-day, under the name of Aesthetic or
Harmonic Gymnastics, forms so large a portion of the practical training of
the "Delsarte System," as it is taught in classes and in schools, and set forth
in the various textbooks now published on the subject. . . .42

In his claim to have originated "harmonic gymnastics" MacKaye was
supported by Mme. Geraldy, Delsarte s daughter. "My father taught
expression/' she said, ". . . he did not teach gymnastics. I do not say
your relaxing exercises and posings are not valuable, for I believe they
may be for certain purposes; but I do say that my father did not teach
them/' 4S In speaking of MacKaye she commented, "But he, like every-
body else, has not been content to leave Delsarte's work as the master
left it, but has added material of his own devising." 44

On the otber hand, Rev. W. R. Alger stated that Delsarte taught
aesthetic gymnastics as part of his system. Alger himself studied with
Gustave Delsarte during the year following ^he death of the elder
Delsarte. Alger wrote later:

I had the privilege of studying with him [Gustave] for a season. Afterwards
Mrs. Henrietta Russell studied with him for a year or more. We both found
that he taught, as imparted to him by his father, the same system of expres-
sion, the same laws and rules, the same gymnastic training, given at a subse-
quent date by Mr. MacKaye to his pupils, and still later, published by Miss
Stebbins in her books.45

Later in the same article Alger commented, "Steele MacKaye no doubt
has corrected some errors in it, developed some portions of it further,

STEELE MAC KAYE 211

made some additions to it, and improved the name by changing it from
'aesthetic' to 'harmonic/ " Alger gave a brief description of these exer-
cises in his Life of Edwin Forrest. 4Q

The weight of evidence, however, would seem to support MacKaye
in his claims for inventing harmonic gymnastics. MacKaye accepted the
trinitary concept of Delsarte, and, in general, the whole speculative
philosophy, but being less profoundly religious than Delsarte, or at
least not Catholic in religion, he was probably less interested in the
philosophical implications than in the practical aspects. Thus MacKaye
seems to be responsible for the emphasis on gesture in the Delsarte sys-
tem as taught in America, although Delsarte System of Oratory, dis-
cussed later in this paper, also contributed heavily to that end. In any
event, MacKaye's failure to make a clear and unambiguous statement
about the system and his own contributions to it contributed to the
conversion of the system into a method of physical culture.

Delsarte had been interested primarily in the training of singers. Mac-
Kaye was interested in the training of actors. Only in the hands of
pupils of MacKaye and of pupils of his pupils was the system applied
to "expression" or interpretation.

The part Mr. Steele MacKaye has taken in developing and popularizing the
Delsarte system is too well known to need any explanation or defense. He,
the late Prof. Lewis B. Monroe, and the Reverend William R. Alger were the
great American trio to whom the expressional arts owe an immense debt of
gratitude. They are the founders of the "new elocution," and were in the
most intimate professional and personal relations with Delsarte.47

So wrote Edgar S. Werner in March of 1892. Of this trio, only Monroe
was, by profession, a teacher. As a young man Monroe had suffered
from poor health and had become interested in physical training. From
this his interest had spread to vocal training.48 He was one of the
founders of the School of Oratory of Boston University, of which he
later became Dean. Among his pupils here were Charles Wesley Emer-
son, founder of the Emerson College of Oratory,49 S. S. Curry, founder
of the School of Expression of Boston,50 Franklin Sargeant, long the
director of the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, and many other
prominent leaders in the elocution movement. Alexander Graham Bell
was a teacher in this school under Monroe's sponsorship.51

Monroe published a book, Vocal and Physical Training.52 In it he
stated his indebtedness to Rush and to the adaptation of Rush's work
by Russell. However, the book also advocated a system of vocal and
physical exercises to be taught in the public schools that would train

212 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

the mind, body, and soul and presented a system modeled after the
Gymnase Triat of Paris.5 3

MacKaye's lectures in 1877 had markedly influenced Monroe, but his
early death, in July, 1879, at the age of fifty-four, deprived the elocu-
tion movement of a leader who might well have prevented some of the
confusion that was associated with Delsarte's name.54

Rev. William Rounseville Alger is an entirely different case. As a
popular Unitarian minister of Boston, Alger was drawn to Delsartism
by the basic Christian philosophy of the system, although how a Uni-
tarian minister was able to reconcile his own faith with a philosophical
system so obviously Roman Catholic in its inception is difficult to see.
Evidently Alger espoused only those elements of the system that would
accord with his own religious philosophy. Fred Winslow Adams, writ-
ing in Werners Magazine, says of Alger, "He speaks of Delsarte's
aesthetic gymnastics as 'the basis of a new religious education, destined
to perfect the children of men, abolish deformity, sickness, and crime,
and redeem the earth!'" 55

James R. Alger was born in 1823. As a boy he worked on a farm and
at other occupations chiefly in Boston. He entered Pembroke Academy
at Pembroke, New Hampshire, and at the age of twenty entered the
theological school at Harvard University from which he was graduated
in 1847. Upon graduation he became the pastor of Mt. Pleasant Church,
Roxbury, where he remained for seven years. He then became pastor
of the Bulfmch Street Church, where he remained for ten years. Be-
cause of poor health he took a trip abroad in 1865, and on his return he
was offered the pastorate of the Music Hall society. He preached there
from 1868 until 1872. In 1868 also he was made chaplain of the Massa-
chusetts House of Representatives.56 During these years, Alger had
written and published a number of books. They were chiefly religious
and philosophical pamphlets, but many of tibem had proved popular.
At the time he appears in the Delsarte story, he was engaged in writing
his Life of Edwin Forrest, published in 1877.

Both Monroe and Alger had become interested in Delsarte in a rather
roundabout way. The two were good friends. Alger was under contract
to James Oakes, publisher, and friend of Forrest. Oakes received a
letter from the French correspondent, Francis Durivage, full of enthu-
siastic praise of Steele MacKaye and of Delsarte and his philosophy.
Monroe and Alger were so impressed with the letters of Durivage that,
when MacKaye returned to America, they made a special trip to New
York to see him. They were even more impressed with him and his
teaching than they had expected to be from Durivage's letters. Both
became enthusiastic followers and pupils and helped to stimulate inter-
est in MacKaye's first lectures. Alger, after a short period of study with

STEELE MACKAYE 213

MacKaye, went to Europe with the intention of studying with Delsarte
himself, a study prevented by the death of Delsarte. Madame Delsarte,
however, wrote to Alger in Vienna, telling of her husband's death, and
adding, "But when you arrive in Paris, our oldest son, Gustave, who
inherits much of his father's genius and all of his traditions, will be
quite at your service/'57 Alger accepted this offer and studied with
Gustave Delsarte the better part of a year, and, presumably, from his
studies with MacKaye and the younger Delsarte, acquired a good
understanding of the Delsarte philosophy.

After his return from Paris for some years Alger continued to preach
and, evidently, teach the Delsarte system. He lectured at various times
on the basic philosophy of the system. In the final years of the nine-
teenth century he lectured at Curry's School of Expression on a number
of occasions. On February 9, 1897, he spoke on the "Nature, Meaning,
and Laws of Rhythm in Experience and Expression," and on February
16, he was scheduled to lecture on "Eighteen Forms of Emphasis." In
the December, 1898, issue of Expression Magazine, Curry wrote:

Rev. William R. Alger has been giving a course of six lectures to the
School of Expression on the "Drama of the Human Face." As the result of
years of investigation, he has information and quotations gathered from wide
and varied sources. He gave most profound and philosophical definitions and
discriminations of the leading phases of the subject. Some of his definitions
were most important. He carefully distinguished a mask from a face, and the
expression of the face from grimacery. Among the most forcible parts of the
lectures were the illustrations of various kinds of the faces which Mr. Alger
has noted in his experience.58

Among the special courses listed in the School of Expression in the
autumn issue of the Expression Magazine for 1899, course No. 6 was
listed as follows:

VI. Rev. William R. Alger, the distinguished student and scholar, will
give four courses in the afternoon lectures upon,

1. The Philosophy of Human Nature in the Acquisition of Experience and
the Command of Expression.

2. The Ideal of Personal Perfection and the Method and the Principles of
the Physical, Ethical and Aesthetic Training for Its Realization.

3. The Varieties of Human Character in All Its Types, Critically Studied,
Defined, Analyzed, and Illustrated.

4. The Historic and Artistic Evolution of the Human Voice Considered in
Its Successive Stages, Its Mysteries, Its Social Offices, and Its Ideal Perfec-
tion.59

And, in the Winter 1899-1900 issue of the same magazine, Alger's name
appeared three times on a list of lectures and recitals:

Oct. 26 A lecture on "The Work of Life and Its Motives." Rev. William

R. Alger.

214 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Nov 11 A lecture on "The Seven Fine Arts." Rev. William R. Alger.

Nov. 2, 9, 16, 28, Dec. 5, 12, 19. ... Lectures on "The Philosophy of Hu-
man Nature in the Acquisition of Experience and the Command of Expres-
sion," Rev. William R. Alger.60

Some fifteen manuscripts of these lectures are still available and have
been the subject of a special study.61 The lectures indicate that Alger
had accepted the trinitary concept as originally stated by Delsarte and
the mechanical aspects arising from it, but there is a strong religious
strain running through all his work. Price commented in her study of
Alger:

The basic idea running through these lectures is that all heaven and earth,
and all that is in them can be divided into the trinity, based upon the Holy
Trinity of God, the Father; Jesus Christ, the Son; and the Holy Ghost. In
man, created in die image and likeness of God, the trinity is manifest as life,
mind, and soul, or the vital, mental and moral realms

Because man is created in the image and likeness of God, it should be his
duty to develop his powers to the highest degree possible. He should always
strive for perfection. It is possible for man to attain personal perfection if he
has the will power to follow a rigorous and self -disciplinary training

Gaining control of his muscles and body is the first step in the realization
of the ideal for the artist. His system of physical culture must be based upon
aesthetic principles. They must combine mental, bodily, and emotional
unity.62

Thus, after MacKaye's other interests had drawn him away from any
serious advocacy of the Delsarte system, and even after MacKaye's
death, Alger carried on the ideas and practices of the Delsarte system.
He was the last important advocate of the system as he had been one of
the earlier. He died February 7, 1905.

The first and by far the most important of the many books dealing
with the system was Delsarte System of Oratory, published by Edgar
S. Werner. The book, essentially, was a translation of notes of French
pupils of Delsarte. The book went through four editions, each edition
presenting additional material.

L'Abbe Delaumosne, a French priest who had studied with Delsarte,
published, in 1874, the notes of his studies.63 The little book was en-
titled Pratique de UArt Oratoire de Delsarte. It was translated by
Frances A. Shaw and printed in 1882, under the title The Art of Om-
tory, System of Delsarte ** S. S. Curry said of this book:

After his death [Delsarte's], a priest, who had studied with Delsarte, pub-
lished without any authority whatever, the notes he had taken of his lessons.
The little book was published in Paris for fifty cents, but even at this price,

STEELE MACKAYE 215

the small first edition was not sold, a poor translation, however, by one who
knew nothing of Delsarte, was published in America, and sold at two dollars
a volume, greatly to the financial gain of the publisher. The book was uni-
versally condemned by everyone who knew anything of Delsarte, both in
France and in this country. It was crude, and mis-represented his method.65

A comparison of the French original and the translation, however, shows
that the translation was a satisfactory one and that Curry's criticism is
not entirely justified. That the book misrepresented the Delsarte sys-
tem may be more nearly true. I/ Abbe Delaumosne evidently attended
a cours planned for clergymen, or, at any rate, he took notes only on
those aspects of the system that applied to oratory. There is no men-
tion of music and little reference to acting. The preface opens with
these words:

Orators, you are called to the ministry of speech. You have fixed your
choice upon the pulpit, the bar, the tribune or the stage. You will become one
day, preacher, advocate, lecturer or actor; in short, you desire to embrace the
orator's career.66

The book is divided into three parts: Part I, covering thirty-five pages
in the translation, deals with voice; Part II, containing eighty pages,
treats"*oTgestiire; Part III, with thirty-three pages, discusses articulate
lan^iiage.^The emphasis on gesture is obvious. The book contains such
stanoSrd items from the Delsarte system as the medallion of inflection,
the nine basic attitudes of the legs [illustrated], the zones of gesture,
etc. The material was undoubtedly gleaned from Delsarte's lectures and
attempts by American Delsartians to discredit it in favor of their own
theories and procedures must be discounted. This volume became the
first edition of Delsarte System of Oratory.

The second edition of this work, published in 1884, added to the
Delaumosne notes a translation of notes of another French pupil of
Delsarte. In 1882, Angelique Arnaud, a minor French writer of senti-
mental novels, published in Paris a volume simply entitled Frangois
Delsarte.67 The book was in two parts. The first part presented a brief
biography while the second part discussed the philosophical basis of
the system. It was this second part, along with "The Attributes of Rea-
son," an essay by Delsarte himself, that was added to the original Delau-
mosne notes and published under the title of Delsarte System of
Oratory. Arnaud's material is discursive and rambling, lacking the
mechanical positiveness of the Delaumosne notes, but it does supple-
ment heavily the philosophical treatment. This second edition was pub-
lished in 1884. A third edition appeared in 1887 which added the bio-
graphical section of Arnaud's book and a section called "Literary
Remains of Frangois Delsarte," a translation of material purportedly

216 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

purchased from Madame Delsarte. This material, as well as the Arnaud
book, was translated by Abby L. Alger, daughter of Rev. Alger. The
fourth edition, published in 1892, added "The Lecture and Lessons
Given by Mme. Marie Geraldy [Delsarte's Daughter] in America," and
some miscellaneous items.

In the absence of any published material from MacKaye's pen, this
book remained the best statement of Delsartism and it had consider-
able authority. Undoubtedly it did more than any other to fix the zones
of gesture and other mechanical details of the system in the minds of
American teachers.

There were many other books on the Delsarte system, of course. Such
books as Genevieve Stebbins' Delsarte System of Dramatic Expression
and her Society Gymnastics, Anna Morgan's An Hour With Delsarte,
Emily Bishop's Self Expression and Health: Americanized Delsarte
Culture, and Moses True Brown's The Synthetic Philosophy of Expres-
sion were widely used and sold.

The system finally became a routine mechanical system for the teach-
ing of the expression of emotion largely through gesture and body posi-
tion, accompanied by statue posing, tableaux, etc. By 1900 the system
was largely outmoded. It is now only of academic interest. Cl^artism
had its value, however, in the interest and activity stimulated in trie
whole field of speech, and out of the vitriolic arguments as to the mean-
ing, interpretation and use of the system, there tended to develop a
real interest in speech which has contributed, in some measure, to a
better understanding of speech training everywhere.

Notes

1. Werner's Magazine was founded in January, 1879, under the name The
Voice by Edgar S. Werner. In January, 1889, the name was changed to Werner's
Voice Magazine, and in January, 1893, the word voice was dropped and the journal
became Werners Magazine In general reference in this article the journal is called
Werner's Magazine; in specific citation the name at the time is used.

2. Charles Bickford, "The Delsarte Delusion," The Voice, X (November, 1888),
177.

3. L. P., "Letter Box," The Voice, VI, No. 1 (January, 1884), 16.

4. Elsie M. Wilbor, "Chautauqua," Werner's Voice Magazine, XII (August,
1890), 195.

5. S. S. Curry, The Province of Expression (Boston, 1891), p. 337.

6. J. Weber, Le Temps, August 1, 1871.

7. Francis Durivage, "Delsarte," The Atlantic Monthly, XXVII (May, 1871),
615.

8. Le Soir, July 26, 1871.

9. George A. Neely, "The School of Delsarte: Based on An Original Notebook/7
unpublished M.A, thesis, Louisiana State, 1942.

10. W. Warner, "Publications Musicales," L'ficlair, August 28, 1839.

11. Escudier, "Chefs d'Oeuvre Lyrigues des Anciens Maitres," La France Musi-
cole, February 4, 1855.

STEELE MACKAYE 217

12. Jules Janm, "La Semaine Dramatique," Journal des Debats, August 8, 1853.

13. C. L. Shaver, "The Delsarte System of Expression as Seen Through the
Notes of Steele MacKaye," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wisconsin, 1937. See
also: Novalyne Price, "The Delsarte Philosophy of Expression as Seen Through
Certain Manuscripts of the Rev. William R. Alger," unpublished M.A. thesis,
Louisiana State, 1941, Virginia Morris, "The Influence of Delsarte in America as
Revealed Through the Lectures of Steele MacKaye/* unpublished M.A. thesis,
Louisiana State, 1941, Edwin Levy, "Delsarte's 'Cours D'Esthetique AppliqueV,
Based on an Original Notebook," unpublished M.A. thesis, Louisiana State, 1940,
Neely, op. cit.; Myra White Harang, "The Public Career of Frangois Delsarte,"
unpublished M.A. thesis, Louisiana State, 1945, Rayda Wallace Dillport, "The
Pupils of Delsarte," unpublished M.A. thesis, Louisiana State, 1946.

14. Shaver, "Delsarte System," p. 41. The reader may wonder if there is any con-
nection between Delsarte and Swedenborg. There may be, but there is no evidence
of such connection. Swedenborg's name does not appear in any material relating
to Delsarte. Delsarte's theories seem rather to arise from Catholic doctrine than
from the philosophy of Swedenborg

15. Curry, Province of Expression, p. 344.

16. The title page of Alphonse Paget's notebook states, ". . . Exposition in Nine
Lessons on Art, Oratory, Painting and Music." Cf. Levy, "Delsarte's Cours D'Esthe-
tique Appliquee." Charles Boissiere, in two separate articles in La Reforme Musicale
( May 23, 1858 and July 11, 1858) indicates that the course consisted of ten lessons.

17. Delsarte System of Oratory, 206.

18. Percy MacKaye, Epoch: The Life of Steele MacKaye, 2 vols. (New Yoik,
1927), I, 133-136. For a similar description of Delsarte's "Cours," see A. Giraudet's
letter to the editor, The Voice, VII (January, 1885), 9-10.

19. Dillport, Pupils of Delsarte.

20. One of MacKaye's sisters studied singing with Delsarte See MacKaye,
Epoch, I, 134.

21. Epoch, I, 37.

22. Epoch, I, 135.

23. Epoch, I, 135-136.

24. Epoch, I, 134-135. It should be noted that Delsarte had several children,
two of whom followed in his footsteps. His daughter, Marie, later Madame Geraldy,
visited America in 1892 where she lectured and taught briefly. His son Gustave
taught the system after his father's death until his own death in 1879.

25. Epoch, I, 141-142.

26. Epoch, I, 142.

27. Epoch, I, 150-151.

28. Epoch, I, 154.

29. Epoch, Appendix xli.

30. Le Salut Public, July 23, 1871.

31. Epoch, I, 228-232.

32. From a Redpath circular quoted in Epoch, I, 231.

33. Epoch, I, 263.

34. Epoch, I, 266-267.

35. Morris, Influence of Delsarte, p. 26.

36. Epoch, I, 190.

37. Epoch, II, 267.

38. "Francois Delsarte*' (August, 1889), p. 149; "Expression in Nature and Ex-
pression in Art," a series of four articles, April, May, June, August, 1887.

39. Epoch, II, 460.

40. Werners Voice Magazine, XIV (December, 1892), 373.

41. Morris, Influence of Delsarte, pp. 44-45.

42. Mrs. Steele MacKaye, "Steele MacKaye and Franc, ois Delsarte," Werner's
Voice Magazine, XIV (July, 1892), 187 passim. This article was written some two
years before MacKaye's death and he must have known and approved of its state-

218 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

ments. See Epoch, II, 270. Interestingly enough, a footnote on page 271 states
that Rev. Alger approved of the article.

43. E. Miriam Coyriere, "Mme. Geraldy's Visit to America/* Werner's Voice
Magazine, XIV (April, 1892), 103.

44. Ibid.

45. W. R. Alger, "The Aesthetic 'Gymnastics' of Delsarte," Werners Magazine,
XVI (January, 1894), 4.

46. William R. Alger, Life of Edwin Forrest, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1877), II,
659-662.

47. Werners Voice Magazine, XIV (March, 1892), 59.

48. Werners Voice Magazine, XI (September, 1889), 169.

49. Price, Alger, 2.

50. S. S. Curry, "Professor Lewis B. Monroe, Some Characteristics of His Teach-
ing," Expression Magazine, I ( December, 1896), 243.

51. Epoch, I, 152.

52. (Philadelphia, 1869).

53. Ibid., 7.

54. Werners Voice Magazine, XI (September, 1889), 170.

55. "William Rounseville Alger," Werners Magazine, XV (March, 1893), 87.

56. This summary is taken from Alger's obituary notice in the Boston Transcript,
February 8, 1905.

57. Alger, "The Aesthetic 'Gymnastics* of Delsarte," Werner's Magazine, XVI
(January, 1894), 3.

58. V, 216.

59. V, 371.

60. Appendix, 9.

61. Price, Alger.

62. Ibid., 119-122.

63. M. L'Abbe Delaumosne, Pratique de VArt Oratoire de Delsarte (Paris,
1874).

64. The Art of Oratory, System of Delsarte, tr. Frances A. Shaw (Albany, N. Y.,
1882).

65. Curry, Province of Expression, 335.

66. Shaw, Art of Oratory, preface.

67. Angeh'que Arnaud, Francois Delsarte, ses Decouvertes en Esthetique, sa
Science, sa Methode (Paris, 1882).

JLU Dr. James Rush

LESTER L. HALE

In examining or utilizing Dr. James Rush's contribution to speech
education, not only must the most familiar product of his investigation,
The Philosophy of the Human Voice,1 be scrutinized, but its frame of
reference should be appreciated. While Dr. Rush presented a detailed
analysis of human vocal expression which since his day has set the
stage for much that has been superficial in the teaching of speech, his
own work was not superficial; it was based to a considerable extent on
philosophical and scientific inquiry. In aiming his chief research to-
wards a sound and satisfactory explanation of human function and
physiology, he was led into a byway which captivated his attention and
led him to elaborate investigation jofjhg morejtangible evidence of
flie humanm voice. Thk

to^the field of speech Americaj^first comprehensive organization of
vocalprinciples._The scope of the PhffosopT^^ and

detailed than any single volume written on the subject prior to its first
publication in 1827. The thoroughness of the book, its apparent and
immediate usefulness to teachers, made Rush a recognized authority
in the discipline of elocution. Unfortunately, superficial applications of
his systematic description of expressive phenomena were drawn from
his book. They bred many abridgements and abuses of his basic philo-
sophical and physiological approach, obscuring and distorting his more
significant and profound purpose. Consequently, appraisal of Rush's
contribution to speech education is often colored by prejudice and pre-
supposition. One's bias against any modern mechanistic technique
which seems to resemble Rush's vocal analysis, however, must be iso-
lated and properly evaluated before the Philadelphian can receive his
due.

ThePhilosophy as,a work on speech is Rush'^ffempt to apply medi-
cal scienceTffstt w» known to him, to the analysis of human behavior
and the processes of neurological control. In Rush, medical science and
speecR come together.

219

220 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

The political freedom established by our nation's great leaders in
1776 was only one aspect of the emancipation of the American people.
Perhaps one of the most vital influences in stimulating fresh points of
view and unprejudiced thought came from the pen of Dr. Benjamin
Rush, James Rush's father. Physician-general in the Continental Army
under George Washington, signer of the Declaration of Independence
and one of the most public-spirited men of the time, Dr. Benjamin Rush
wrote voluminously and carefully on almost every subject which he
wished to revolutionize. He wrote so defiantly and honestly that in
later years it became politically hazardous for his son Richard Rush to
permit the publication of his father's autobiography.2

Of such a father and in such a time was James Rush born on March
15, 1786. His mother, Julia Stockton, was the daughter of Richard
Stockton, also a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He not only
inherited the energies and purpose of the pioneer, but his father care-
fully schooled him in the discipline of observation and scientific inquiry.
He attended the College of New Jersey (Princeton), receiving his
degree in 1805. By 1809 he had secured the M. D. degree from the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania. His father then financed his travel abroad and
his study in Edinburgh. Throughout the years of his formal education,
father and son exchanged many letters— letters which vouch for the
personality and promise of the young physician whose professional life
was to follow in the shadow of his father's waning popularity. When he
graduated from the University of Pennsylvania his dissertation reflected
the qualities of mind which his father had inculcated. This and other
early efforts brought the approval of many.3

Dr. James Rush was honored by membership in many honorary socie-
ties, including the Institute de France, Academic Royale de Sciences,
Peithessophian Society of Rutgers College, American Philosophical
Society of Philadelphia, Rush Medical Society of Willoughby Univer-
sity, Peithessophian Society of Theological Seminary of New Bruns-
wick. The hopes of a father for a son were being fulfilled in the achieve-
ments of James, the physician.

While leading his contemporaries in the revolt of ideas, Dr. Benjamin
Rush wrote on many subjects, Among these was that of the mind and
its diseases, an interest which the son, James, soon acquired. Goodman
has identified Benjamin Rush as America's first psychiatrist, and the
publication of his Medical Inquiries and Observations upon the Disease
of the Mind was until 1883 the only comprehensive American treatise
on the subject4 Before considering the diseases of the mind, he first
described what he believed to be its faculties and operations:

DR. JAMES RUSH 221

Its faculties are: understanding, memory, imagination, passions, the prin-
ciple of faith, will, the moral faculty, conscience, and the sense of Deity.

Its principle [sic] operations, after sensation, are perception, association,
judgment, reasoning and volition. All of its subordinate operations, which are
known by the names attention, reflection, contemplation, wit, consciousness
and the like are nothing but modifications of the five principle [sic] opera-
tions that have been mentioned.

The faculties of the mind have been called, very happily, internal senses.
They resemble the external senses in being innate, and depending wholly
upon bodily impressions to produce their specific operations. These impres-
sions are made through the medium of the external senses. As well might we
attempt to excite thought in a piece of marble by striking it with our hand,
as expect to produce a single operation of the mind in a person deprived of
the external senses of touch, seeing, hearing, taste, and smell.
. . . the mind is incapable of any operations independently of impressions
communicated to it through the medium of the body.5

While in Europe, Dr. James Rush became acquainted with the phi-
losophy of Dugald Stewart 6 and Lord Bacon, and became irritated by
the speculations of metaphysicians. Returning to America in 1811, he
lectured to his father's classes in medical school at the University of
Pennsylvania. The essence of his thinking at that time was that "reason-
ing is only a train of physical perception" and "that the mind in its out-
line consisted only of perception and memory." 7 He made notes on this
subject in his Commonplace Book of Medicine in 1818 under the title
"The Mind, Its Healthy Functions,9' 8 and planned a thorough analysis
of the mind based upon careful observations.

The approach of father .and so& to investigations of mental function
was to create considerable criticism of their own religious convictions.
Thij^wa^lhe, price- they were to pay for their new-found freedom of
thought. This had serious consequences in the life of James, whose
later endeavors were also to provoke misunderstanding and disapproval.
Benjamin Rush was a leader in the Presbyterian faith and his reform
effort was "as fundamentally religious as it was patriotic." 9 His stern
faith (which it is presumed he imparted to his children) led him in later
years to "part company with his Presbyterian teachers and associates"
because he found them "too good to do good." 10 His letters to James
often expressed hope that James would hold fast to his religious convic-
tion. But society could not believe that scientific study of the machinery
of human control would be compatible with faith in divine design.
When James Rush in his turn developed a segment of the history of
mind, religious indictment became intense and no doubt contributed
to his retirement. Public opinion to a great extent was admittedly re-
sponsible for deferring his investigation of mind.

Research into the mind was dominated by "the privileged order of
metaphysicians." ai Mind was said to be spirit and spirit was an entity

222 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

separated from matter and unyielding to human analysis. Accordingly,
Rush's analysis of mental functions was judged atheistic. Such condem-
nation apparently became widespread as years passed and may have
had some foundation in his general contempt for organized religious
practice. Into a small note pad he penned in 1835: "The literary world
have got to worship Shakespeare, and so forget to imitate his excellence,
just as the religions of the world adore God and omit to imitate his
truth and justice." 12 And in the Preface to Rhymes of Contrast on Wis-
dom and Folly in 1869 he wrote: "Our mind like the rest of physical
Creation is under the necessary Rule of God and Nature; let us not try
to thwart that Rule, by the metaphysical attempt to take their Law of
the intellect into our own fictional hand. Follow that Law and it will
keep us right, as it does the mind of the sub-animal world." 13

James Rush was attempting to open further the door of scientific in-
vestigation of mind, following the efforts of his father. He believed
firmly in the existence of an Almighty Power, or First Cause, and that
science merely aided us in understanding His instruments of life. Many
friends and relatives, however, feared for his soul's safety if he con-
tinued such materialistic reasoning. His cousin, Mary Rush, wrote
dramatically and at great length petitioning him to give up his studies.

. . . look away, I pray you, from the weak and sinful creatures who now
address you and remember only, that your own soul is at stake. . . .

I entreat you, by all that is sacred in heaven, and by all that you value
upon earth, by all that is manly and respectable and praiseworthy among
men, to abandon your present delusive and soul-destroying views of religion.14

Although Rush's studies were to take him towards renown, he was
never to know the comfort and respect of success which he sought in
his own days.

Shortly after he had begun his practice of medicine following his
return from Edinburgh, he married Phoebe Anne Ridgway (1819), an
heiress and a brilliant leader of Philadelphia society. The early years
of his marriage were apparently very happy, and his professional
achievements during this time were his best. He not only had begun his
investigations of mental function but attempted to prepare a medical
text which he called Novus Ordo Medicinae^ This was to have been a
compilation of medical case histories using not only a running account
but a chart system for recording symptoms. A bound workbook of
printed page-forms for this purpose is still among his manuscripts but
comparatively few pages were recorded. This work, begun in 1813 and
continued while he was conducting his successful medical practice, was
apparently laid aside as his enthusiasm for his study of mind increased.
He did not find another opportunity to return in earnest to it, for he

DR. JAMES RUSH 223

intensified his study of mind during the years 1818-1822, which in turn
led him, by 1823, into the field of creative communication.

This shift of interest so occupied his attention that his early notations
on mind were left unpublished until after The Philosophy of the Human
Voice had been in print through five revisions. However, in order to
comprehend better the relationship between his vocal analysis and his
description of mental process it is desirable first to follow his reasoning
through to its eventual goal, The Natural History of the Intellect, which
appeared in 1865. With appreciation for his avowed and original pur-
pose of analyzing mental function, and an understanding of the prod-
uct of this endeavor, we shall more readily recognize his vocal philoso-
phy as the by-product of his medical research,

In addition to his conviction that mind consisted only of perception
and ine'mory, which Dr. Rush had arrived at prior to 1818, he had the
growing belief that the manner in which mind was capable of expres-
siorrwas a part of mental function itself. He then began a careful ex-
perimental observation of vocal expression to discover the relationship
between it and its apparent complement— perception.

Thus began a hybrid process of reasoning and experimentation which
made the investigations of Rush an interesting cross between the arm-
chair psychology of his contemporaries and the experimental psy-
chology which followed almost fifty years later. It should be remem-
bered that his 1818 recorded notations were contemporary with BesseFs
report of the Greenwich observatory incident which called attention to
individual differences and ushered in a new era in psychology. Thus, his
primary postulates on mind and voice become historically significant
in relation to experimental psychology as well as to speech.

Rush^firgtJS^ipr postulate, which evolved during the half century
in which he studied the functioning of mind, was that mind should be
regarded ^^physiological function as orderly as sensation itself and
as tanpSe a$, muscle movement His two volumes on the subject of
human intellect which finally emerged are too involved and cumber-
some to be reported upon in detail, but it can be seen that he started
from a premise of physiologic reality:

All that man perceives, thinks, pronounces, and performs is respectively
through his senses, his brain and his muscles. From these physical and direc-
tive agencies proceed his science and his art; and from their proper or im-
proper use severally arise his good and his evil, his error and his truth.16

He finally saw function of mind as consisting of five "constituents,"
rather than three:

224 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

. . . First. Primary perceptions of things before the senses. Second. Memorial
perceptions after their removal. Third, Joint perceptions; by which primary
are compared with primary, or memorial with memorials which are called
unmixed; and mixed, when these two different forms are compared with each
other. Fourth. Conclusive perceptions, or those by which we come finally to
a knowledge of the relationships of two or more of the primary and memorial
to each other; from their agreement or identity to classify the things of nature;
affirm their laws; and apply them to the purpose of science, of art, and of our
physical, moral and intellectual selves. Fifth. Verbal perceptions, or vocal and
written signs of all the other four different forms; without which allotted and
manageable signs; or in common phrase, without language of sound, or
of symbol, for thought and passion; the human mind would be as limited
as that of the brute.17

What Rush was saying meant simply that the complicated and mys-
terious functioning of mind was really an orderly sequence of sensation,
memory, association, conclusive perception, and muscular and verbal
performance responses:

All of its [mind's] intellectual functions and products, whether of thought,
or passion, properly so distinguished; or of passion carried into nervous, mus-
cular, or vocal action, are the effects, the whole effects, and nothing but the
effects of these.18

His effort as a physician-scientist to understand mind as a physiological
phenomenon— a function of tangible matter and human material— was
one of the first attempts at modern classifications in psychology.
His second contention was that thought and speech are inseparable:

The mind as we only can know it; is an indivisible compound of Thought
and Speech or other sign. Which first begins, if they are not co-eval, is a point
for Metaphysicians. . . .

To describe the mind, therefore, it is necessary to show the inseparable
connection between thought and the voice; with their influences on each
other: for they cannot, separately, be fully known.19

In pointing out the interdependence of thought and speech, and in
demonstrating the functions of mind to be physiological phenomena,
the third basic postulate becomes evident: that speech is a total mental
and physical response. Although he stops the moving wheel to count its
spokes, he remains constantly aware of man's dynamic nature, his inte-
gration, his existence as a unit, and his whole personality. "Wisdom,
folly, virtue, and vice, with all their forms and effects are enacted by
the mind," 20 he says, and what a person is, and what he will be, is
determined by the cultivated use of sensation, memory, association, "and
the verbal resultant Mental processes, then, are one and the same with
physical sensation and expression; and speech cannot be isolated or
disassociated from the physical being, or whole personality, for it is

DR. JAMES RUSH 225

actually the fifth constituent of the mind itself. The Natural History of
the Intellect attempts not only to develop these primary tenets, but to
describe the manner in which behavior can be recognized and predicted
in many of life's situations.

Although his final work on mind bears a strong resemblance to cur-
rently known neurological explanations of brain activity, his volumes
on the subject were too late to be significant in the rapidly expanding
scientific approaches to the subject. Furthermore, his final digest of the
matter became so distorted by disappointments of his life and packed
with the prejudice and disillusionment of a man "out of joint with his
time/' 21 that his volumes on the intellect were disregarded by scholars
and served only to accent his final failure as a scientific figure.

It is not difficult today to understand how reasonable was Rush's
transition from an analysis of mind to that of voice. As he observed the
function of mind he became convinced he "should require further
knowledge of the various departments of nature, "science, art, and life"
to enable him to "encompass the detail embraced by [my] practical
system of Perceptions/3 22 Furthermore, he did not wish to become
involved in further argument concerning the question of the mind's
"material, or spiritual, or any mystical or metaphysical causation." 23
He reasoned that for one successfully to submit to the public a view as
controversial as his, he would first need to develop a reputation for
profound thinking through more popular publications. He began to
study mathematics, natural philosophy, history, metaphysics, philology,
military science, and the aesthetic arts. This last interest awakened in
him his early flair for rhyming and he began occasionally to write in
"the brief-sententious manner of early English Dramatists." 24 He rea-
soned that neither a textbook in medicine nor a professional disserta-
tion on mind would be accepted by the hostile public until he had
received acclaim in other ways. No doubt this decision led him first
to complete the Philosophy.

Along the way he was drawn to a study of Smith's Harmonics 2S and
was impressed by the "distinction perceived by the Greeks, between the
continuous or sliding movement of the voice, in speech, and its dis-
crete or skipping transition, by the steps of the musical scale." He
sought to satisfy his curiosity concerning the variations of voice "by a
strict, physical, and Baconian investigation of its phenomena, particu-
larly as they might be connected with the working plan of the mind." 2Q
In 1823 he recorded some notes called "Remarks on the Human Voice
in Reading." This marked the beginning of a more concentrated and
systematic effort to study the voice.

He tried to free himself from the bondage of existing falsity and con-
fusion in this field and to make his own first-hand observations of

226 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

speech. In 1826 this work was accomplished, and he published in
1827 the first edition of The Philosophy of the Human Voice.

Ill

Having explained how Dr. Rush came to write on speech and voice
and what major premises formed the foundation of his various writings,
we are now in position to examine the original contributions he made
specifically in the field of speech. But before doing so, it would be well
first to look at the basic premise upon which his descriptive analysis of
the speech process hinged. In writing The Philosophy of the Human
Voice, Rush endeavored to furnish "physiological data to Rhetori-
cians." 27 It was not his concern to create a system of rules, but to
observe nature that he might give a physiological foundation to ex-
pressive art

The anatomy of the speech mechanism had already been described
by science, but the physiology or function of the mechanism had not
been detailed beyond discernment of the parts of the system that pro-
duced the sound. Rhetoricians, on the other hand, had noted the
elements of voice—force, pitch, quality, rhythm—but had not identified
them with the functions of anatomy. In publishing a vocal philosophy
which gave a physiological foundation and explanation to vocal theory,
Rush gave an entirely new and different emphasis to the study and
teaching of speech,28

It is true he gave application to his organized arrangement and
description of the vocal elements, which provided elocutionists easy
access to a "system," but his major contention was that the natural
phenomena of vocal expression were describable, and further, that only
from such a description could students be guided in making their own
analysis of nature.

He who has a knowledge of the constituents of speech, and of their powers
and uses, is the potential master of the science of Elocution; and he must
then derive from his ear, his sense of propriety, and his taste, the means of
actually applying it with success.29

He believed that an actor's or speaker's first obligation was to nature,
that to be natural in all expression wa& tlie prime prerequisite, but that
a student must have the cues to recognition of nature's unfoldment
which a study of the Philosophy should give him. Furthermore, when
the dictates of nature inspired a performer he must have at his com-
mand the skill of a voice potential which would serve his creative
instinct. That potential could be cultivated by routine and organized
exercise of the voice, unrelated to any specific performance effort.30

DK. JAMES RUSH 227

He reasoned that as a violinist must learn finger dexterity and tonal
control through exercise, so should a vocalist, speaker, or singer
achieve vocal capacity that would serve him satisfactorily in moments
of creative expression.

In the preparation of his own treatise, Rush was apparently keenly
aware of the work of many of the earlier writers. His personal
library contains many such volumes, most of which are replete with
his own marginal notations of occasional agreement and frequent vio-
lent disgust.31

We are now ready to consider the five major and original contribu-
tions of Rush to the teaching of speech. In the first place, he made a
bold gesture at clarifying speech nomenclature. Such confusion had
re§td±ed from earlier writers using terms so freely and interchangeably
that their concepts themselves were often obscured. Rush attempted
to give rhyme and reason to the terms currently being used. For
example, he drew together the "elements." He- dassified voic,e under
five general heads: quality, force, time, abruptness, and pitch.32

Discussion of pitch became more clarified under his terminology
because he used terms with parallel reference in music. Many con-
fusions such as existed between the meanings of quality and tone,
inflection and pitch, and among quantity, accent and force, were clari-
fied by his recorded nomenclature and because of the popularity of his
book they became accepted terms. No doubt the nomenclature de-
scribed and used in the Philosophy has been a great influence in devel-
oping the speech terminology in use today.

The second, and without doubt the most important original contribu-
tion, was his concept of a radical and vanishing movement in the
production^ of phonetic units. A greater part of his text is based upon
this concept. MucH of his work on pitch and stress appears to be more
original with him than it actually was because of his use of radical and
vanish to explain them. Radical is the beginning or root of each sound
unit from which the vanish can develop all manner of movement to
complete the unit. This vanishing movement has usually a fading effect,
although in some cases the radical fades into a stressed vanish. The
simplest illustration of radical and vanish is the diphthong or receding
glide. In vowel movements of the word day Rush refers to the [e] as
the radical and the [i] or [j] as the vanish. In the approaching glide [j]
as in the word yes, the radical is the [j] and the [E] the stressed vanish.
There is no definite division of movement into two parts; rather these
terms are "general reference to the two extremes of the movement." 33

He pointed out further that when the voice moves through the
radical and vanish in a smooth manner with no effort to prolong either
the attack or the release of the sound, the equable concrete movement

228 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

is formed. If the first part of the sound is prolonged and the vanish is
terminated rapidly, the protracted radical is created. Likewise, the pro-
tracted vanish occurs when the radical is slighted but greater stress
and duration is given the vanish.

Much can be explained by radical and vanish. Differences in stress
and loudness occur always between the radical and vanishing move-
ment. Between radical and vanish there must be a difference in pitch.
Song is distinguished from speech in that song is characteristically a
monotone. The pitch differences in song are of melodic nature, but a
word or syllable sung on a single melody note is a monotone. Rush
said there could be no such thing as a monotone in speech for there
must be a change in pitch sometime during the radical-vanishing move-
ment of each syllable. This can certainly be observed when a person
speaks in a so-called monotone, for the monotonous effect comes from a
predominant pitch or pitch pattern, while there are still present the
slight pitch changes during each radical-vanishing movement of a
syllable.

The third phase of his original work on voice was his explanation of
the phonetic elements, based upon the function of radical and, vanish.
He"nbt only reclassifled them to avoid the inconsistencies of spelling,
but also to observe the intonation of speech. He recognized thirty-five
phonetic elements which he divided into three groups: the tonics, sub-
tonics, and atonies. The tonics are capable of complete radical and
vanish movements (vowels, glides); the subtonics can embrace this
movement within themselves less perfectly, depending usually upon an
adjacent tonic for completion (voiced consonants); and the atonies are
incapable of employing the movement; but serve in the capacity of
imitators or terminators (unvoiced consonants). The tonics serve best
as vehicles of flexibility in intonation, the subtonics next best, and the
atonies are of least value in that respect. He also described the sounds
as to aspiration, abruptness, and other phonetic characteristics. His was
the clearest and most reasonable phonetic analysis of his day.

The fourth original contribution was his treq.toent^syUa^ication.
This again was based upon the radical and van^fiMgmovemerit A
syllable depends upon the completion of the radical and vanish. When
that movement has been terminated any new sound produced will of
necessity initiate another syllable. The presence of a final atonic means
that another syllable will of necessity be initiated if it is followed by a
subtonic or tonic which has the capacity to begin a new radical and
vanish movement. Two adjacent atonies prolong the syllable, but once
the vanish is completed by an atonic a new movement cannot be begun
without a second syllable resulting.
He showed further how varying effects of the syllables are created

DR. JAMES RUSH 229

by combining different phonetic elements in the creation of a complete
radical-vanish movement.

The first difference in the quality of a syllable is created by the
presence of the tonics alone. Rush said in this case that there is no
difference in the agreeableness of the sound, for the diphthongs are as
pleasant as pure vowels, even though the concrete rise of a diphthong
is composed of two different alphabetic elements.

The second type of syllable is one in which the tonic is initial and
is followed by one or two subtonics, as in [elm]. This forms an "easy
mingling of their constituents" and consequently a pleasant, blending
effect34

The third type is that in which a tonic is preceded and followed by
a subtonic as in [memz], [relm]. A continuant effect is created by this
combination also.

The fourth arrangement of elements is not so agreeable. Rush said,
for tonics, subtonics and atonies are combined. This presence of the
atonic prevents the equability of the concrete and consequently a less
smooth effect. An example of this composite type is in strength [stren,0].

A fifth arrangement is found in the second syllable of little, in which
no tonic is present. Such a combination lacks strength, Rush said.

Rush also had a word to say about the glide, which he did not call
by that name, but which he discussed in showing the "various degrees
in the smoothness of the syllabic impulse." 35 For instance, in the word
•flower he shows how two syllables are created if the w subtonic is
inserted between the two tonics. In other words, if the o is uttered as
distinct diphthong [cm], with the [u] as a protracted vanish movement,
a complete radical and vanish results and a full syllable is formed,
Thus when the [3] is sounded a new radical is begun and a second
syllable ensues.

Rush further said that if the o in rising through the concrete interval
to the vanishing movement blends the [u] of the diphthong with the
final er, only one syllable results. The final [r] becomes the vanish of
[a] and the word is spoken as one syllable, thus [flour].

He added to the foregoing comment on the word flower, the explana-
tion of how a y is often inserted between awkward combinations of
successive tonics as in aorta. This reduces the necessity of a point of
junction in vocality in order to start the radical of the second tonic
after the vanish of the preceding tonic. If the y is inserted, a continuous
utterance is created with the y, [i], becoming the vanish of the pre-
ceding tonic.

These two incidental observations of Rush demonstrate his recog-
nition of the concept of glide on the basis of the reaction of the radical
and vanishing movement to these particular alphabetic constructions.

230 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Rush made rather significant observations in the field of phonetic
analysis which apparently were of less interest to his contemporaries
and followers, and consequently have not been identified among his
contributions to speech pedagogy.

The fifth point of originality in Rush's vocal theory was his detailed
description of the specific interval of inflection. He described the emo-
tional and intellectual impressions created by the use of certain intervals
of pitch-change in the spoken word. These vary from semi-tone changes
in plaintive expression, when the change in pitch is so slight between
the radical and vanishing movement that only the trained ear will
recognize it as a varying pitch, to the octave inflection of interrogation
and emphasis. He described the effect of these intervals as they occur
in both rising or falling slides, in the circumflex and in the step forms.
These variations are so rapid and in some cases so minute that it is
difficult to recognize their existence as an important discriminating
factor between speech and song. They are responsible, however, for
much of the emotion and shades of meaning in speech.

These five phases of his vocal philosophy may be regarded as the
most significant and original contributions of his book.

Rush made other contributions to speech education in his treatise on
voice. Among them were his arrangement and treatment of vocal ele-
ments which became the pattern many teachers used in formulating
their own instructional theory. Although almost all aspects of his de-
scription of vocal elements were already in literature,36 Rush's own
arrangement, terminology, and observable variations of course con-
stituted definitive differences. His use of the concept of radical and
vanish permeated his presentation and gave it original character.

Some mention should be made of Rush's treatment of vocal quality,
since there appears to be some difference of opinion in later literature
concerning his statement of this element and because of its relationship
to the Natural History of the Intellect.

The chapters in the Philosophy which Rush subjected to greater
revision than any others throughout the six editions were those dealing
with verbal expression of mind and passion, and with the physiological
description of voice. Rush believed one cannot understand the quality
of voice without knowing what structures are involved in the produc-
tion of it; hence as he attempted to give physiological description to
vocal quality, he utilized what information was known factually about
the anatomy of the vocal mechanism, added his own observations, and
described all vocal behavior as physiological functioning of structure.
Such study, evolving from his long-range intentions of discovering
states of the mind, was subject to much revision and eventually pro-
duced his opinion on "Vocal Signs of Thought and Passion."37 The

DR. JAMES RUSH 231

relationship of his work on voice to his later volumes on intellect is
more clearly seen in this aspect of voice analysis. In an attempt to
understand the mind, he described in detail the peripheral, or vocal,
signs of thought and feeling. After recording such observation in terms
of vocal quality, inflections, changes of stress, and time, he then at-
tempted to describe all the possible thoughts and passions which might
give rise to such variety of vocal signs. Thus The Philosophy of the
Human Voice, which was born of his medical inquiry into mind, itself
became the parent of The Natural History of the Intellect, the product
of his attempt to describe the combinations of mental functioning which
give rise to vocal expression.

Throughout all the editions of Rush the total number of vocal qual-
ities described in any way are six. Of these, the nasal quality is men-
tioned only as a subtonic in his classification of phonetic elements, and
the guttural is given as a defective and unpleasant utterance already
described by rhetoricians. The whisper is listed as a quality of voice
until the sixth edition of his text, when he used the term uocality for
quality, and hence the whisper could not qualify.

The natural quality of voice is that used in ordinary speaking and
employs complete pitch range. It is produced by the vibration of the
vocal cords and is capable of discrete, concrete and tremulous pitch
motion. Lively or moderate sentiments of colloquial dialogue and of
familiar lecture and discourse are expressed by this quality as Rush
described it.

The falsette [sic] is "that peculiar voice in which the higher degrees
of pitch are made, after the natural voice breaks or outruns its
power/' 38

Again, all the phonetic elements may be made in the falsette ( except
of course, atonies ) and it has the same pitch flexibility, although lim-
ited in range; it is made with the same mechanism which produces the
normal voice. It is frequently used in screaming, and giving expression
to pain and surprise.

The whisper, which is merely a continuant of atonic elements, is a
form of producing speech which is used in expressing secrecy, and
gives rise to the aspirated form of vocalization. The aspirate, per se, is
never referred to as a quality of voice.

The orotund voice is "that natural or improved manner of uttering
elements which exhibits them with a fullness, clearness, strength,
smoothness, and a ringing or musical quality, rarely heard in ordinary
speech/' 39 It is obtainable, Rush believed, only after much cultivation
of voice; in speech, it would require the adaptation of the "pure tone"
production of singing and a more complete control of expiration. Its
advantages in speaking are to give a greater fullness and smoothness

232 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

to voice, to aid in distinct articulation, to give greater strength and
musical value, and to maintain voice under better control. He declared
it to be a most useful quality for interpretative purposes, but in no
way should it detract from one's use of the normal quality.

Thus, Rush gave explanation to vocal quality-a phenomenon of
voice resulting from the function of body structure under government
of mind. Expression of thought, changes in emphasis, and passion it-
self are all evidenced as the product of changing combinations of
quality, pitch, force, rhythm. Again it should be remembered that
while Rush made a detailed description of the isolated speech proc-
esses, he expressed the modern viewpoint that it is the total, complete,
and cumulative effect which is expressive. Each of the elements gives
its share of support to the whole, but no element should itself be
noticeable in the patterns of expressive communication.

While the Philosophy became very popular with teachers of elocu-
tion after its first edition in 1827, it still did not give Rush the recog-
nition which would have permitted his return to his earlier scientific
studies. Accordingly, he felt that if he could attain a reputation as a
literary writer, using his early love and aptitude for poetic composi-
tion, he might achieve the popular acclaim he needed to pave the way
for his profound medical discourse. This resulted in the publication in
1834 of Hamlet, A Dramatic Prelude in Five Acts.40 In this effort too,
he fell short of the mark and remained obscure as a literary figure as
well as a scientist.

Rush took heart, however, from the early appeal of the Philosophy
and revised it three times before attempting to finish his work on the
mind. By a few teachers such as Jonathan Barber, the Philosophy was
held to be an unprecedented triumph. On the other hand, Barber
himself suffered great social and professional reverses because of cham-
pioning and even associating with a man whom society did not greatly
respect.41 Barber's Exercises in Reading 42 published in 1823 was en-
tirely in accord with Rush and the two men were immediately attracted
to each other. In fact, Rush attributed a large part of the Philosophy's
success to Jonathan Barber. Others who apparently approved were
Jonathan's younger brother John,43 a lecturer in the City of New York;
Samuel Gummere,44 then principal of a school in Burlington, New
Jersey; a Mr. Dennison, an Irishman and teacher in Philadelphia; Dr.
Andrew Comstock,45 a physician who had established himself as a
teacher of elocution in Philadelphia; and William Bryant, a clergyman
of the Episcopal Church.

DR. JAMES RUSH 233

Several authors used material directly from Rush, probably without
his consent. Rush had obvious reason to be incensed by plagiarisms of
authors like Rev. W. B. Lacey,46 Lyman Cobb,47 Richard Cull,48 and
there is evidence of much unpleasant exchange of correspondence be-
tween Rush and men who were attempting to take advantage of him.
He wrote Charles Whitney and accused him of unauthorized use of
his name in an Albany, New York, Evening Journal advertisement
which announced Whitney as a teacher of reading, declamation, and

singing.49

The fact that Rush wrote at all in the field of speech was rather
accidental and resulted from an unusual turn of affairs. Yet once he
demonstrated that human vocal expression could be observed in minute
detail and given an orderly and systematic description, he established
a precedent which lesser men than he were to abuse. Rush did not
plan a prescriptive system for teachers of elocution, but intended to
show nature's orderly design. That he should have given impetus to a
trend towards mechanical artifice of communication and aesthetic art
was an unhappy ending to a noble determination to discover scientific
facts about human behavior.

Many simplifications of his system were soon published by teachers
who sought to present a concise outline of elocutionary art to students.
These abridgements did not recognize his true purpose but prescribed
the very artifices Rush had sought to remedy. In the Preface to the third
edition of his Philosophy, Rush took occasion to condemn the practice
of simplifying his system for schools:

This attempt, either by its very purpose, or by the manner of its execution
has perhaps had the effect to retard the progress of our new system of the
voice. For, the superficial character of these books, and the mingling of parts
of the old method with parts of the new, together with an attempt to give
definition and order to these scattered materials, has left the inquirer unsatis-
fied, if indeed, it has not brought his mind to confusion.50

He continues later:

One of the purposes of this work is to show, by refuting an almost univer-
sal belief to the contrary, that elocution can be scientifically taught, but the
manner of explanation and arrangement in too many of these garbled school-
book compilations, has gone far towards satisfying the objectors that it can-
not.51

on the voice was regarded as the first part of his
o^ffitrrd; 'ttef elt that the Human Intellect was essential
to the un Jef s'taMing of the Philosophy and should have been published
as a comj|anic» work. And so it proved to be; for mid-twentieth
century" speech pedagqgy, m keeping with Rush's basic views, holds

234 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

speech to be a total physical reaction inseparable from thought, action,
and emotion. Some teachers of speech today, however, ridicule what
they believe to be the mechanical and superficial "system" he insti-
gated, which was in reality a popular application gaining reputation
before his major investigation of mind was revealed and his total
philosophy of behavior understood.

After editing the Philosophy for the last time in 1866 (the 1879
edition was a reprint, following the terms of his will), his last publi-
cation was Rhymes of Contract on Wisdom and Folly, appearing in
the year of his death. It attempted to give evidence of the working
principles of The Natural History of the Intellect. He demonstrated in
his writing of the dialogue in rhyme the use of "natural or related ties*'
as an involuntary process of thought resulting from prior perceptions.
This process of association had been described in its defective state by
Dr. Benjamin Rush as "dissociations," 52 and no doubt referred to the
disorder known today as "dysphasia." "It consists not in false percep-
tion . . . but of an association of unrelated perceptions, or ideas, from
inability of the mind to perform the operations of judgment and
reason/' 53

The last years with his wife prior to her death had been under
estranged conditions. This, together with his failure to obtain public
approval for his work, embittered him. He retired from the society
which had rejected him, to become a recluse, totally disillusioned,
much misunderstood. Just prior to his death he apparently dictated a
final statement to his brother-in-law, Henry J. Williams, who became
executor of his estate; it read: "Dr. James Rush died in 1869 from
difficulty of breathing in the eighty-fourth year of his age." 54 It was
written in another hand (probably that of Mr. Williams whose initials,
H. J. W., appear in the left-hand corner) but a last shaky signature of
James Rush is affixed to the document. His will, among other pro-
visions, called for the construction of a library building to be given to
the Library Company of Philadelphia, and called the Ridgway Branch,
in memory of his wife. In it were to be housed his entire private
library and that of his father, whom he had admired and unsuccessfully
imitated. This collection has served many scholars who seek after the
works of Benjamin and James Rush. In a memorial tomb in the Ridg-
way Library, James Rush rests with his wife, uncomforted still by the
"knock of friends" and too often misunderstood by a profession he
accidentally came to serve.

As a medical scientist who was led to explore the entity called mind
and as a "voice scientist" who rigorously studied vocal behavior, James

DR. JAMES RUSH 235

Rush was probably the first investigator to see that mind is inseparable
from the physical phenomena of self-expression. His fellow scientists,
hampered by their prejudices, could not fairly criticize his views.
Overly-zealous teachers of elocution, misusing the information of his
Philosophy, earned him ill repute among most modern teachers of
speech. Perhaps only the speech historian of the 1950's understands
that his field stands in heavy debt to Dr. Rush.

Notes

1. James Rush, The Philosophy of the Human Voice: Embracing Its Physio-
logical History: Together with a System of Principles by Which Criticism in the
Art of Elocution May be Rendered Intelligible, and Instruction, Definite and Com-
prehensive. To which is added a Brief Analysis of Song and Recitative (Philadel-
phia, 1827). Hereafter cited as Philosophy. Other editions: 1833, 1845 1855 1859
1867, 1879. '

2. See The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, ed., George W. Corner (Prince-
ton, 1948). Richard Rush had become Attorney General of the United States in
1813 under President Monroe and it would have been most embarrassing to him if
in this year of his father's death, the autobiography were released to the public
with its revelations concerning the heroic personalities of the nation's fathers. Hence
Richard and James, even after much deletion and editing, agreed to prevent its
publication. It has recently been published after it came into the possession of the
American Philosophical Society in 1943, through the papers of Alexander Biddle,
grandson of Samuel Rush, a brother of Richard and James, who had taken them
"without authority" from James' Library.

3. For example, see letter of Dr. E. Miller to Benjamin Rush, New York, July
2, 1809. Rush Papers, Library Company of Philadelphia, Ridgway Branch.

4. Nathan Goodman, Benjamin Rush, Physician and Citizen (Philadelphia
1934), pp. 254-255. F

5. Medical Inquiries and Observations upon, the Diseases of the Mind 3rd ed
(Philadelphia, 1827), pp. 8-9.

6. Dugald Stewart, Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind (Brattle-
boro, 1808), [First ed, 1792].

7. James Rush, A Brief Outline of the Analysis of the Human Intellect; In-
tended to Rectify the Scholastic and Vulgar Perversions of the Natural Purpose,
and Method of Thinking; by Rejecting Altogether The Theoretic Confusion, The
Unmeaning Arrangement, and Indefinite Nomenclature of the Metaphysician, 2
vols. (Philadelphia, 1865), II, 435-436. Hereafter cited as Human Intellect.

8. Ibid, II, 436.

9. Letters of Benjamin Rush, ed. L. H. Butterfield, 2 vols. (Princeton, 1951),
I, p. Ixix.

10. Ibid., Benjamin Rush to Mrs. Rush, July 16, 1791, p. 600.

11. Human Intellect, II, 472.

12. Notation by Rush, in Rush Papers, December 14, 1835, Ridgway Branch,
Library Company of Philadelphia.

13. James Rush, Rhymes of Contrast on Wisdom and Folly. A Comparison Be-
tween Observant and Reflective Age, Derisively Called Fogie, and a Senseless and
Unthinking American Go-Ahead. Intended to Exemplify An Important Agent in the
Working Plan of the Human Intellect (Philadelphia, 1869), p. xi.

14. Mary Rush to Rush, August 10, 1834. Rush Papers.

15. Human Intellect, II, 474.

16. IWd.,1,9.

236 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

17. Human Intellect, I, 195. Beginning with the fourth edition, 1855, of the
Philosophy, Rush attempted to introduce the double comma as a punctuation mark
to be of value between a single comma and a semi-colon.

18. Human Intellect, 1, 189.

19. Ibid., p. 4.

20. Ibid., II, 1.

21. Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, July 12, 1900.

22. Human Intellect, II, 471.

23. Ibid., p. 472.

24. Ibid., p. 473.

25. Robert Smith, Harmonics, or the Philosophy of Musical Sounds (London,
1759).

26. Human Intellect, II, 475.

27. Rush's marginal notation in his personal copy of John Walker, Elements of
Elocution (Boston, 1810), p. 244.

28. Philosophy (1845), p. 123.

29. Philosophy (1859), p. 503.

30. Philosophy (1827), pp. 548-549.

31. Among other authors whose books Rush used are: Rev. James Chapman,
The Music, or Melody and Rhythms of Language. . . (Edinburgh, 1818); William
Cockin, The Art of Delivering Written Language; or, an Essay on Reading . . .
(London, 1775); John Dwyer, An Essay on Elocution (Cincinnati, 1824); William
Enfield, The Speaker, or Miscellaneous Pieces Selected from the Best English
Writers . . . (London, 1835; Dedication dated 1774); John Foster, An Essay on the
Different Nature of Accent and Quality . . . ( London, 1761 ) ; Henry Home of Kames,
Elements of Criticism, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1816); John Mason, An Essay on
Elocution or Pronunciation, . . . (London, 1748 ) , An Essay on the Power of Num-
bers, and the Principles of Harmony in Poetical Composition . . . (London, 1749),
An Essay on the Power and Harmony of Prosaic Numbers . . . ( London, 1749 ) ;
Abb6 Maury, The Principles of Eloquence: Adapted to the Pulpit and the Bar,
tr. John Neal Lake (London, 1793); Lord Monboddo, Essays on the Origin and
Progress of Language, 6 vols. (Edinburgh, 1774); Messieurs du Royal Port, The
Art of Speaking: In Pursuance of a Former Treatise, Intituled, The Art of Thinking
(London, 1708); Ebenezer Porter, Analysis of the Principles of Rhetorical Deliv-
ery as Applied in Reading and Speaking ( Boston, 1827 ) , Art of Speaking ( Phila-
delphia, 1775); Thomas Sheridan, A Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language,
calculated solely for the Purposes of Teaching Propriety of Pronunciation, and Just-
ness of Delivery . . . (Philadelphia, 1783), A Course of Lectures on Elocution: to-
gether with Two Dissertations on Language . . . (London, 1781), Lectures on the
Art of Reading (London, 1798); B. H. Smart, A Practical Grammar of English
Pronunciation*. . (London: John Richardson, 1810), The Practice of Elocution,
(London, 1826), The Theory of Elocution: to which are now added, Practical Aids
for Reading the Liturgy (London, 1826); Sir Joshua Steele, An Essay Towards
Establishing the Music and Measure of Speech to be Expressed and Perpetuated by
Peculiar Symbols (London, 1775); W. Thelwall, Introductory Discourse on the
Nature and Objects of Elocutionary Science . . . (London, 1805); John Walker, A
Key to the Classical Pronunciation (Philadelphia, 1808), A Rhetorical Grammar in
which the Common Improprieties in Reading and Speaking are Detected . . . ( Bos-
ton, 1814), Elements of Elocution, being the Substance of a Course of Lectures on
the Art of Reading ... 2 vols. (London, 1781 ), The Melody of Speaking Delineated
(London, 1787).

32. Philosophy (1827), p. 29 ff.

33. Ibid., p. 43.

34. Ibid., p. 82,

35. Ibid., p. 83.

36. See note 31 for writers whose books were among those available to Rush
and no doubt of service to him.

DR. JAMES RUSH 237

37. Philosophy (1859), p. 478 ff.

38. Philosophy (1833), p. 83.

39. Ibid., p. 90.

40. (Philadelphia, 1834).

41. From a section of the Printer's Copy of the 2nd edition of the Philosophy
which was omitted from the 1833 edition.

42. Exercises in Reading and Recitation (Baltimore, 1823).

43. Exercises in Reading and Recitation (Albany, 1828).

44. A Compendium of the Principles of Elocution on the Basis of Dr. Rush's
Philosophy of the Human Voice ( Philadelphia, 1857 ).

45. Practical Elocution (Philadelphia, 1830).

46. Elocution (Albany, 1828).

47. N. A. Reader (Zanesville, Ohio, 1836).

48. Garrick's Mode of Reading the Liturgy of the Church of England (London
1840).

49. James Rush's letters, Ridgway Branch, Library Company of Philadelphia

50. Philosophy (1845), p. xi. *

51. Ibid.

52. Medical Inquiries and Observations upon the Diseases of the Mind, p 257

53. Ibid.

54. James Rush Papers.

11 The Literary Society1

DAVID POTTER

When a multitude of young men, keen, open-hearted, sympathetic, and
observant, as young men are, come together and freely mix with each
other, they are sure to learn one from another, even if there be no one
to teach them; the conversation of all is a series of lectures to each,
and they gain for themselves new ideas and views, fresh matter of
thought, and distinct principles for judging and acting, day by day.
—JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, The Idea of a University

As the previous studies in this volume have indicated, an outstanding
characteristic of the early American college was its tightly knit and
closely regulated constitution. Indeed, one might conclude from an
examination of the college laws and regulations that the daily life,
social as well as curricular, of the student was designed "to reduce to a
minimum the time the devil might find employment for idle hands"
and idle minds.2

When judged by modern standards, however, the colonial student,
despite his closely supervised schedule, did not lead a particularly
strenuous life. But unless he strolled within bounds or indulged in the
mild forms of exercise not on the banned list, he had few approved
methods of consuming his surplus energy. The company of young
ladies was usually forbidden during college sessions. Organized ath-
letics were unheard of. And even the privilege of reading contemporary
periodicals, much less current fiction, was denied him because the
ordinary college library contained few if any "authors who have wrote
within these SO years." 3

The company of his fellow scholars was practically the only legit-
of escape from the academic routine which remained
colonial student. It is to be expected, therefore, that
societies featuring jovial companionship as well as student-directed
opportunities for parliamentary practice, oratory, declamation, debate,
literary efforts, dramatic "productions/' and reading, material, all rela-
tively free from faculty censorship and, usually, protected from "pry-

THE LITERACY SOCIETY 239

ing" eyes by high walls of secrecy, would come into being almost from
the beginning of American higher education.

Rise of the Societies

In the North and South

Althoughrstudent societies of a religious nature had existed on the
American" college"" campus at least as early as 1716? the first of the col-
lege^literary and debate societies appears to have been the Spy Club
of "Harvard which, in its bylaws of 1722, was stipulating:

That a discourse of about Twenty minutes be made at every meeting by
one of the Society on any Subject he pleaseth.

That any Difficulty may be proposed to the Company & when propos'd the
company shall Deliver their Thdts upon It.

That there be a Disputation on Two or more questions at every Meeting,
one part of the Company holding the Affirmative, the other the Negative part
of ye Question.4

By 1782, Harvard was also the site of the Philomusarian Club, con-
certed "in order— to Stem That Monstrous Tide of Impiety & Ignorance
which is Like to Sweep all Before it & for Our Mutual advantage &
Emolum*. . . ," 5 and in 1770, of the Speaking Club of Harvard, later
called the American Institute of 1770, which sternly ruled that "no
Member shah1 speak in Latin in his turn nor at any other time without
special Leave from the President." 6

At Yale, in 1753, the long-lived Linonian Society was founded,
largely through the efforts of President Clap (one of the first college
administrators to recognize the importance of the societies as under-
graduate safety valves as well as literary and forensic proving grounds) .
But even earlier, at least by 1750, an ephemeral coUege society, the
Critonian, was conducting literary sessions in New Haven. And in 1768,
the second major Yale society, the Brothers in Unity, disputed ques-
tions of its choosing.

Before the outbreak of the Revolution, other colonial chartered col-
leges witnessed the rise of undergraduate and graduate student so-
cieties. On November 11, 1750, the Flat Hat Club was founded at
William and Mary and included Thomas Jefferson on its rolls, while
on December 5, 1776, the Phi Beta Kappa society was constituted at
the Williamsburg college with "Friendship for its Basis, Benevolence
and Literature for its Pillars. . . /' and with the assurance to its initiates
that "now . . . you may for awhile disengage yourself from scholastic
Laws and communicate without reserve whatever reflections you may
have made upon various objects. . . ." 7

240 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Princeton, then the College of New Jersey, appears to have been
the scene of society rivalry early in its history. From the pioneering
Plain-Dealing and Well-Meaning clubs, sprang two of our most vig-
orous college societies, the American Whig in 1769 and the Cliosophic
in 1770,

Columbia (King's College) also had active forensic societies early
in its history. On June 11, 1766, the New York Weekly Gazette or
Weekly Post Boy informed its readers that "Several gentlemen having
thought proper to form themselves into a ... Literary Society, for the
encouragement of learning., have raised a fund. . . ." It is likely that
Alexander Hamilton belonged to this or similar society during his stay
at King's.

Rutgers (Queen's College) also supported at least two pre-Revolu-
tionary societies. Little is known of the Polemic other than a reference
to its existence by Simeon De Witt in a letter to John Bogart dated
February 14, 1778. At this time, however, another society, the Athe-
nian, had been in existence "on the Banks" for five years, polishing the
minds and beautifying the manners of a select group of students, fac-
ulty members, and townsfolk.

In the years which followed the war and particularly in the first two
decades of the nineteenth century, the majority of the longer lasting
societies were established at the older colleges. Such stalwarts were
activated as the Hasty Pudding Club of Harvard in 1795, a society
which even in its infancy mixed such stunts as the breach of promise
case of Dido vs. Aeneas with serious debates on "questions of literature,
morality and politics"; Philolexian in 1802 and Peithologian four years
later at Columbia; Philoclean and Peithessophian at Rutgers by 1825;
the Misokosmian (later the Philermenian) in 1794 and the United
Brothers in 1806 at Brown; the Social Friends in 1783 and the United
Fraternity in 1786 at Dartmouth; and the Philomathean in 1813 and
Zelosophic in 1829 at Pennsylvania.

At other prominent colleges north and south of the Mason-Dixon
line, strong student societies were functioning soon after college classes
were formed. For example, three years after the receipt of its charter,
Dickinson was the site of the Belles Lettres Society (in 1786), As
early as 1795, the Debating Society, parent of the Dialectic and the
Concord Societies, was featuring debating, composing, reading, speak-
ing, and parliamentary procedure at North Carolina. In 1803, scarcely
two years after the opening of the college, Demosthenians turned on
their flow of oratory at the University of Georgia. At Hamilton, all
students were expected to join one of the two societies, the Phoenix
and the Union, which were founded in 1812, the year the college was
chartered.

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 241

In the West

As highep'-educajtion spread to the West, the literary and debate
societies' found fertile ground and were amply nourished by appreci-
ative^ administrations and student bodies even after many of the older
Northern and Southern organizations were in a period of decline.

Atrthe Ohio colleges, the first student society appears to have been
the Zelothean founded at Ohio University inj.812, some eight years
after the organization of the college. Other Ohio campuses were even
more receptive. At Western Reserve, Joseph Welch Barr, a transfer
from Hamilton, helped form the Philozetian Society six weeks before
the organization of a faculty at the college. In 1830, the Adelphic and
Franklin Societies were founded at Reserve and from them descended
Phi Delta. Oberlin, founded in 1833, had its share of vocal student or-
ganizations shortly after its doors were opened. But its most interesting
claim to forensic fame lies in its fostering of the Young Ladies' Associa-
tion "for the promotion of literature and religion" in 1835, the first of
the female societies in our colleges. Also, in 1835, Denison, founded
four years earlier, gave its support to the Calliopean Society and, in
1843, to the Franklin Literary Society, important forces in campus
politics as well as in literary and forensic endeavors.

In Indiana, the colleges were as active forensically as their Ohio
counterparts both in the classroom and in the "halls" of the student
societies. In 1830, one year after Indiana University emerged from its
Seminary days, the Athenian Society was founded, followed by the
Philomathean Society in 1831. At little Wabash, the Philomatheans
dated their history from 1834, the year of the college charter. In 1835,
the Western Literary Society, later the Euphronean, was chartered by
the state. Similarly, DePauw sponsored the Philological Society in 1870
and the co-educational Atlantis Society in 1873. And Notre Dame,
while not so forensic-minded as other Indiana colleges, harbored such
interesting associations as the St. Cecilia which, according to the 1870
catalog, was a dramatic and musical society as well as a debating club;
and the Thespians, a pioneer among Indiana collegiate dramatic asso-
ciations in 1861.

In 1850, the year the first undergraduate class was formed at the
University of Wisconsin, the first of the Madison literary societies was
established at a faculty-sponsored meeting. Following the advent of
this organization, named the Athenian by Chancellor John Lathrop, a
number of other societies were created by student groups, chief among
them being the Hesperian in 1853 and the Castalia, a women's club,
in 1864.

Moving farther west, the pattern was repeated at the major state

242 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

supported colleges in Iowa. At the State University in 1861, but one
year after the establishment of the collegiate department, the Zeta-
gathian Society adopted its constitution, followed by the short-lived
"Copperhead" splinter society, the Ciceronian, in 1862, and the Irving
Institute in 1864. At Ames, the Iowa Agricultural College (Iowa State
College) faculty sponsored the co-educational Philomathean Society
during the pre-collegiate term in 1868 and in 1870 welcomed the
Bachelor Society, which was followed in 1871 by the women's Cliolian.
As higher education was made available to the inhabitants of the
far west, the majority of the college administrators followed the estab-
lished practice of sponsoring literary and debating societies. Accord-
ingly, the 1868-1869 catalog of the University of Deseret (University
of Utah) declared:

Literary Societies will be found among the attractive and beneficial fea-
tures of the University.

They will be organized among the students, and have for their objects a
theoretical and practical training in oratory, debate, declamation, composi-
tion and parliamentary rule and order.8

At the "pioneer university of the west," Willamette, the Philomath-
ean Society was incorporated by the Oregon Territorial Legislature
in 1856, three years after the college was chartered. Unlike most of the
societies of this period, Philomathean was established not only for
students but also for faculty members and college sponsors. Within
the next seventeen years, something new was added— two sets of
brother and sister societies, Concordia (ladies) in 1861 and Hesperian
(men) in 1865; and Alka (men) in 1866 and Atheneum (ladies) in
1870* At first, three joint meetings were held each term. By 1874,
however, only one joint meeting was permitted per term and we read
that "promiscuous meetings of the two sexes in the Society Halls . . .
are forbidden except when some member of the Faculty is present or
special permission has been granted " 9

Moving south along the Pacific, we note that in 1857, Santa Clara
sponsored the first meeting of the Literary Congress which divided its
members into two houses, the Philalethic Senate and the Philhistorian
House.

Thus by the time of the Civil War, the literary and debate society
had extended its grasp on student extracurricular life from coast to
coast.

Scope of The Societies— Debating

As their records indicate, the societies were catholic in the distribu-
tion of their energies and prescribed such varied exercises as spelling
(in the old halls of Princeton) and declamation. They also sponsored

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 243

magazines, imported prominent speakers, and conducted elaborate
exhibitions for the edification of collegians, faculty, and townsfolk. But
from the 1820's until their eventual/ decline, society energy, in the
main, was concentrated upon society debating.

The Forensic Disputation

IJJntil the rise of the student societies, the major or, in many instances,
the only approved method of conducting academic debate in many
American colleges was the Latin syllogistic disputation. Practically un-
changed since its inception in the medieval universities, the Latin
exercise was an important part of most early curricula and a feature of
college exhibitions and commencements. Its format was strictly gov-
erned by rules laid down by the prevailing texts in logic and differed
but slightly whether employed as a teaching and testing device or as
a medium for academic display T\

As indicated by BartholomewHbCeckermann's Systema Logicae, pop-
ular at Harvard in the seventeenth century, and by The Improvement
of the Mind, by the prolific eighteenth-century writer, Isaac Watts, the
classroom procedure followed this regimen: a tutor or Professor, often
the reverend president, selected a question in one of the arts or
sciences taught in the college. A respondent was then appointed to
defend the side of the question which, in the opinion of the tutor,
represented truth. The remaining students in the class were then de-
tailed to act as opponents with the express duty of raising logical
objections to the question which the respondent either affirmed or
denied.

The disputation was opened by the respondent who first read a
carefully worded Latin discourse in which he stated the question, de-
fined and delimited the question, and presented his strongest logically
constructed arguments. Each of the opponents, then, made his objec-
tion to the case, drawn up in the form of a syllogism in which he either
denied the major or minor premises or distinguished between the
accepted usage of key words and the manner in which they were used
by the respondent. The respondent, in turn, attempted to vindicate his
argument by use of other syllogisms which the opponent denied or
reinterpreted until the objections were silenced and "truth" triumphed
logically. The tutor, of course, was always on hand to help out should
the respondent falter in his command of logic and Latin.10

Founded to offset the uncompromising rigidity of the early American
academic climate, the societies were quick to adopt types of debate
which were more flexible and thus more suitable to the contemporary
scene than the Latin syllogistics. As their minutes indicate, the "Two
or more questions at every Meeting" ordered by the Spy Club consti-

244 KHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

tution in 1722 were debated in English, anticipating the earliest rec-
ord of curricular debating in die mother tongue by twenty-five years.
It is likely, however, that the early English disputations resembled the
Latin exercises insofar as they were carefully written and read or else
committed to memory. They differed from the syllogistics, nevertheless,
in several ways other than the linguistic. In the first place, as available
examples of these English forensic disputations indicate, the use of
emotional proof forbidden in the Latin exercise was not only per-
mitted but encouraged in the newer method of argumentation. In the
second place, although logic still played a prominent part in the con-
structive speeches of the forensic disputation, the syllogism was rele-
gated to a minor position. And while, as we shall see, the questions
discussed (or debated) were, at first, closely related to Latin theses
disputed in the contemporary classrooms, a change in emphasis was
not long in coming.

The Extempore Disputation

Eventually, of course, the college administrations recognized the
value of the student initiated exercise. By 1747, English disputations
were being held in Yale classrooms and ten years later, the president
and fellows of Harvard voted "that once in a month the two sen.r
classes have their disputations in English & that in the forensic man-
ner " al But by that time, the collegians were experimenting with

something else. On November 6? 1766, for example, the Yale Fellowship
Club minutes inform us that "the meeting was opened by an Extempore
dispute by Bulkley, Kimberly and Lyon." 12

By the end of the eighteenth century, many of the societies had
adopted the extempore disputation as an additional form of debate,
although one cannot determine what was meant by the term "ex-
tempore." At William and Mary in 1778, the minutes of Phi Beta Kappa
indicate that the extempore was an impromptu exercise: "It be more-
over strongly recommended to the other members as an additional and
improving Exercise, to give their sentiments extempore on the same
subject after hearing the others [who were assigned to forensics]." 13
But when the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Harvard introduced the
extempore debate in 1785, the brothers apparently understood the
term to have the meaning commonly held today, for the debaters were
assigned to the exercise at a previous meeting, thus giving ample time
for preparation and reasoned consideration—a provision also found in
the laws of the Alpha chapter of New Hampshire in 1787 and the
United Fraternity of Dartmouth in 1793.

As early as April 10, 1783, at least one society recognized the rel-
ative importance of the extempore debate to would-be lawyers and

THE LITERABY SOCIETY 245

legislators. At that time, the Linonians voted that "two of the weekly
meetings out of three be opened with an extempore Dispute and the

third , . . with a forensic Dispute " 14 And by "extempore," the Yale

men meant well prepared but not read or memorized constructive
speeches, even though their intentions often outdistanced their per-
formances.15

In 1810, the United Brothers of Brown prescribed extempore de-
bating as the debating exercise of the society, a provision in force as
late as July 7, 1855. In 1831, the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Harvard
followed suit, and by the middle of the century, many society consti-
tutions carried similar provisions although the forensic exercise was
listed in some constitutions until the end of the nineteenth century.

Toward the middle of the century, the caliber of the forensic and
extempore disputations was so high in the societies that several colleges
dropped the exercises from the curriculum. Thus at Columbia, on Jan-
uary 4, 1837, the trustees were informed that "no exercises in extempo-
raneous speaking or debating were required from the Students, as there
are two Societies ... of which these exercises constitute the principal
objects.*' ie

Intersociety Debating

At the turn of the century, the societies made another important
contribution to debate history. Motivated by an intense rivalry which
spurred the sister societies to extreme and, occasionally, ridiculous out-
bursts of energy, outstanding debaters, carefully selected and condi-
tioned by their sponsors, "crossed" arguments at public exhibitions. As
early as 1830, the Demosthenians and the Phi Kappas met at the Uni-
versity of Georgia. Before long, challenges and counter challenges were
exchanged between the two leading societies of each college and the
annual intersociety debates were a regular campus fixture.17

Then only a few decades after the first intersociety debates, some-
thing novel was introduced. To the best of my knowledge, it first hap-
pened at Illinois College on May 5, 1881. There, perhaps stimulated by
the interstate oratorical contest held in Jacksonville early in the spring,
the Phi Alpha Society of Illinois and the Adelphi Society of Knox met
in a series of literary contests, Phi Alpha winning the debate, and
Adelphi garnering honors in declamation, oratory, and essay writing.
And the following day, at Kirkpatrick Chapel, in New Brunswick, New
Jersey, the three representatives of Peithessophian (then struggling
against general student inertia) successfully upheld the status quo
against the representatives of New York University's Philomathean
Society, who argued the affirmative of "Resolved that the only limi-
tations on suffrage in the United States should be those of age and

246 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

sex/' Intercollegiate decision debating had arrived and, in the North,
just in time to revive undergraduate and faculty interest in forensics.18

Debate Procedure

Because of the secret nature of the majority of the societies and
because of the relative newness of academic debating in the vernacular,
the early rules and regulations for the forensic and extempore exercises
varied greatly from society to society and from college to college. Even
toward the middle of the nineteenth century, there was little agreement
among the rival organizations as to the selection of debaters and topics
and as to the time and order allotted. Nor, as we shall see, was there a
set pattern within the societies.

Selecting the Debaters

The majority of societies, like the Speaking Club of Harvard, rotated
all exercises among the various performing classes, which, in turn, were
constituted either by academic seniority or alphabetical distribution.
Other groups, like the American Whigs in 1807, provided that the dis-
putants "shall be appointed by the moderator** with the privilege of
entering the discussion open to all society members after the appointed
disputants had completed their arguments.19 A few parliamentary
minded organizations like the Society of Brothers in Unity in 1783,
selected disputants by society nomination at the "preceding evening." 20
Societies which featured impromptu debates, like the United Frater-
nity in 1857, often prescribed that the disputants volunteer "as the role
is called by the Secretary." 21 A farsighted variation of this method of
appointing debaters was adopted by still other societies like the Lino-
nian in 1835, when they voted that "whenever the requisite number,
shall not be obtained by members voluntarily offering themselves, the
deficiency, shall be supplied by appointments from the President."22
Still another common provision in the society constitutions resembled
the regulation of the Dialectic Association of Oberlin in 1839: "The
Exec Committee (President, Vice-President, and Recording Secretary)
shall appoint four disputants to occupy not over 15 minutes." 23

The Number and Order of Debaters

In general, two to six debaters were appointed or volunteered for the
regular debates although most societies provided for an unlimited num-
ber of volunteer debaters after the regular speakers had performed.
However, one cannot generalize so easily about the order of the dis-
putants. At Brown, for example, the Philermenian Society, in 17983
specified that "the Disputants shall speak in the following order— the
first in the Affirmative shall open, the two in the Negative shall close

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 247

upon him; and the second in the Affirmative shall close upon them;
and then any Member may have liberty to offer his sentiments/' 24 At
Columbia, the society rules merely prescribed that the "President shall
be empowered to select one from the Affirm. & one from the Neg. to
open the debate . . ." with the order from that point on to be determined
by the remaining contestants.25 The majority of societies, however, like
the Philoclean of Rutgers in 1832, required the affirmative to open the
debate, each side speaking alternately.

Time Allotted for Debate

Although a few societies, like those at Georgia described by Professor
Ellis M. Coulter in College Life in the Old South, turned on their ora-
tory as early as nine o'clock on a Saturday morning and forgot to shut
it off until the night had almost expired, the great majority of societies
held their regular meetings in the evening and their constitutions
strictly regulated the time allotted to the regularly appointed and the
volunteer debaters. As might be expected, however, there was little
agreement as to the limitations. Thus, for example, the Dialectic Asso-
ciation of Oberlin allotted its four disputants not over fifteen minutes
in 1839. At neighboring Western Reserve in 1840, Phi Delta allowed
the entire division assigned to debate an hour and a half. The Phoenix
Literary Society of William and Mary in 1872, on the other hand, lim-
ited the two to four debaters (the number varied according to the
desires and the persuasive powers of the president) to two speeches of
not less than three minutes but not more than fifteen minutes. With
presidential consent, the time could be extended to twenty minutes,
beyond which society consent was required for more extensive argu-
mentation. And the Philermenian Society of Brown, as late as June 12,
1858, ordered that the "Polemics shall speak only once, and only ten
minutes each, before the question is given to the society; afterwards no
member shall speak more than twice, or more than ten minutes at each
time, without the consent of the Society/7 26

Judging the Debate

Although there was no set pattern for judging the formal society
debates, most groups either provided for decisions by the president or
by a specially appointed critic or board of critics, as at the United Fra-
ternity as early as 1786 and the Linonian Society as late as 1878, or by
a majority vote of the society members, as at the Cliosophic Society in
1823.

In the eighteenth century, the customary basis for the presidential
or society decision was the validity or the merits of the question. Even
as late as 1830, the minutes of the Philolexian Society indicate that

248 BHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Columbia undergraduates were deciding debates according to the
merits of the question and not according to the arguments advanced.
Early in the nineteenth century, however, the societies began to pro-
vide for judging contestants according to their argumentative ability,
as at the Cliosophic Society in 1823 and the Philoclean Society in 1831.
By the middle of the nineteenth century, almost all the major societies
provided for decisions according to the merits of the debate. But a num-
ber of the older societies, like the Brothers in Unity as late as 1861 and
the Linonian Society in 1863, never broke entirely with the past and
required decisions on both the merits of the question and the merits
of the debate, the president determining the former, the society, the
latter.

Although most of the societies followed the final rebuttal with a deci-
sion and then went on to other business, several organizations provided
for a critical analysis of the debate and the debaters. In 1839, the Dia-
lectic Association called for the president to criticize the performance
of all speakers, while the American Whig Society, in 1848, stipulated
that "It shall be the duty of the Sub-Committee-to sum up the argu-
ments that have been advanced and decide the questions according to
their merits. If the Committee be not unanimous then shall the Speaker
decide between them stating his reasons; after which the decision of
the House shall be taken."27 And in 1875, the Cliosophic Society,
which, as early as 1823, allowed any member to offer Ms sentiments
on the debaters and the merits of the debate after the decision, wisely
provided for a critic appointed at the stated meeting whose sole duty
it was to give the HaH a "just and discriminating criticism upon the
merits or demerits of the performance as well as upon the manner of
its delivery/' Then, after the critique, both the original performance and
that of the critic were discussed by the brothers.28

Subjects Debated in the Colleges

Selecting the Topic

After the second decade of the nineteenth century, the majority of
undergraduate societies solved the difficult problem of selecting the
topic or topics for debate by providing for specially appointed com-
mittees which either reported to the president, who, in turn, selected
the topic from a list of topics previously prepared, as at Cliosophic in
1823, or reported directly to the society, as at Peithessophian in 1827.
Other societies, however, followed the pattern established by Phi Beta
Kappa of Harvard in 1785 and required the president to furnish the

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 249

topic, a practice retained by Philolexian as late as 1852. And several
societies experimented with regulations like those adopted by the
Philermenian brotherhood in 1794, repealed in 1798, and revived in
1812, which required that each member hand in two questions per term.
The questions were, in turn, studied by a committee whose member-
ship was constantly changing. Each committee then debated the ques-
tion it selected.

The topics that were debated were not confined by strictly observed
rules of censorship, as a rule, although the Philological Society of Penn-
sylvania in 1807 censored religious and political topics, the American
Whig Society in 1812 decried the introduction of atheistic and deistic
topics, and the Social Friends in 1834 and the Phoenix Society in 1872
warned against the use of religious subjects. In general, their minutes
indicate that when societies limited the area of debate, the limitations
were confined to the commonly accepted areas of the philosophical,
political, and literary, as at Cliosophic in 1823 and Peithessophian in
1827.

Topics Debated

Despite the restrictions of groups like the Philological Society, the
questions debated by the eighteenth-century societies often bore a start-
ling resemblance to the metaphysical and philosophical theses defended
by respondents at commencement and classroom syllogistics. Thus the
Spy Club disputants in the 1720's argued: "Whether the Souls of Brutes
are Immortal?" "Whether the happiness of Heaven will be progressive?"
and "Whether there be any Infallable Judge of Controversies." 29

As the passing century introduced pressing secular issues, the col-
legians, while retaining an interest in the philosophical and the reli-
gious, evinced an evergrowing concern over social and political as well
as student problems. The following topics debated, selected at random
from the records of the societies, indicate the widening range of
interest:

Phi Beta Kappa of William and Mary:

The Justice of African Slavery. February 27, 1779,
Whether an Agrarian Law is consistent with the Principles of a wise Re-
public. June 5, 1779.
Is Public or Private Education more advantageous. March 4, 1780.

Athenian Society of Rutgers:

That Motion is the original cause of Heat. March 27, 1782.

Whether the present Trade with the Enemy is disadvantageous to Amer-
ica in its present situation. July 24, 1782.

Whether [there is] advantage arising from the Study of the dead Lan-
guages. August 7, 1782.

250 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Linonian Society of Yale:

Whether Emigration from Europe to America would be beneficial to ye

Latter March 17, 1791.

Whether a sudden emancipation of slavery would be politic in the state

of Connecticut. June 19, 1794.

Brothers in Unity of Yale:

Whether women ought to be admitted to a share in civil government.

July 19, 1792.

Would a separation between the Northern and Southern States be pol-
itic April 1, 1796.

Cliosophic Society of Princeton:

Whether ought Jews and Deists be admitted to all privileges of Ameri-
can citizens. August 5, 1792.
Whether debating or composition be more improving. May 27, 1794.

The early decades of the nineteenth century saw the trend toward the
secular continue, with topics concerning national expansion, suffrage,
defense, slavery, representation, international relations, crime and pun-
ishment, national economy, and educational problems predominant.
Religious and "literary" topics were not, however, ignored, neither was
sex. And a new ingredient, humor, began to show itself.

Representative questions with the decision of the judge or judges,
whenever noted in the society records, follow:

Ought the U. States to take Possession of the Floridas? Philolexian Min-
utes (Columbia), November 7, 1819. Negative.

Ought the possession of property to be held indespensable to qualify a
voter? United Brothers Minutes (Brown), May 1, 1813. Affirmative.

Ought representatives to be guided, in their votes, by the will of their
constitutents? Cliosophic Minutes (Princeton), July 23, 1807. Affirma-
tive. Philomathean Minutes (Pennsylvania), November 9, 1814.
Negative.

Should the Slaves of the United States be emancipated? Clariosophic
Minutes (South Carolina), 1812. Affirmative.

Was the conduct of the Governors of Connecticut & Massachusetts jus-
tifiable in refusing to call out the militia at the request of the general
Government? Linonian Minutes (Yale), December 21, 1813. Nega-
tive.

Ought the regulations of Yale-College to be such, that students destined
to different professions, might have an opportunity to pursue differ-
ent courses of study. Linonian Minutes (Yale), June 7, 1810.

Is it probable that Russia will ever be able to destroy the balance of
power in Europe? Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), November 13,
1819. Affirmative.

Are capital punishments beneficial or detrimental to a nation? American

Whig Minutes (Princeton), February 15, 1813. Beneficial.
Whether it is just, & equitable, that old batchelors should be taxed for
the support of old maids? Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), June 13,
1817. Negative.

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 251

The period 1820 to 1840 found the societies stronger than ever and
rapidly multiplying in number. And as they solidified their hold on
campus extracurricular life, they confidently passed judgment on most
of the problems that faced their elders and on several that educators
and statesmen had passed by.

Slavery and secession, of course, continued to attract much attention,
particularly in light of the secessionist threats of South Carolina. Sur-
prisingly, the records of the Southern societies indicate that the col-
legians did not commit themselves wholeheartedly to the cause of
slavery, although one must remember that decisions were now being
given, in the main, according to the merits of the debating. The follow-
ing questions and decisions are representative:

Is enslavement of human beings justifiable? Phi Kappa Minutes

(Georgia), May 10, 1828. Negative.
If South Carolina should secede from the Union ought the Southern

states to assist her? Demosthenian Minutes (Georgia), September 18?

1830.

In general, although there were strong exceptions, the Northern and
Western societies voted against the position of the Southern states:

Is the holding of Slaves justifiable? American Whig Minutes (Prince-
ton), January 17, 1820. Affirmative.

Has a state the right to withdraw from the Union at pleasure? Linonian
Minutes (Yale), April 4, 1832. Negative.

Ought the government of the U.S. resort to force to secure the obedience
of S. Carolina? Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), December 14, 1832.
Affirmative.

Other national problems also occupied the attention of the under-
graduate debaters. Of particular importance was westward expansion,
now closely aligned with the spread of slavery. In general, the Southern
societies voted for expansion if it favored the position of the South. The
reaction of the rest of the collegians was mixed:

Should Missouri be admitted to the Union, without the abolition of
slavery? Cliosophic Minutes (Princeton), January 26, 1820. Negative.

Would a peaceable accession of the Canadas be beneficial to the United
States? Pbilomathean Minutes (Pennsylvania), March 29, 1820. Af-
firmative. Brothers in Unity Minutes (Yale), July 8, 1829. Negative.

Indian affairs, which previously had excited but little interest, now
furnished many debate topics, especially in the North:

Are not the insurrections of the Indians of our country justifiable on the
the same grounds which prompted the Fathers of our country to re-
volt from the British yoke? American Whig Minutes (Princeton),
November 5, 1832. Affirmative.

252 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Ought Georgia to extend jurisdiction over the Cherokee nation? Linonian
Minutes (Yale), February 8, 1832. Negative.

Suffrage also furnished many topics for debate— with a noticeable
but by no means overwhelming liberalization in attitude evinced by
the critics:

Ought the members of legislative bodies be required to possess a cer-
tain amount to Property. Euphradian Minutes (South Carolina),
March 1, 1834. Negative. Cliosophic Minutes (Princeton), Novem-
ber 30, 1825. Affirmative.

Ought the right of suffrage to be extended to citizens universally? Clio-
sophic Minutes (Princeton), June 6, 1832.

Education remained a popular subject. In the South, there was little
change in the wording of the questions or in the recorded attitudes. In
other parts of the country, however, there was an increasing scepticism
toward prevailing educational practices:

Is a classical education necessary to eminence in any profession?

Adelphic Minutes (Western Reserve), June 1, 1830. Negative.
Is the present system of College education calculated for entrance into

practical life? Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), March 28, 1834.

Negative.

As might be expected, sex was of some interest to disputants, espe-
cially in the South:

Should seduction be considered a capital crime? Cliosophic Minutes
(South Carolina), January 15, 1831. Negative.

... a man should be compelled by law to marry the victim of his seduc-
tion. Phi Kappa Minutes (Georgia), 1831. Affirmative.

International affairs still appealed to the society debaters, although
not to the extent as did national issues. The following were among the
many questions considered:

Have we any cause to fear the growing power of Russia? Cliosophic
Minutes (Princeton), August 23, 1820. Affirmative.

Would it he prudent and politic for the United States to form a treaty
offensive with the Republics of South America? Phi Kappa Minutes
(Georgia), February 8, 1826. Negative.

Although religion did not enter the debate lists as in former years,
except for the South, even the Northern and Western collegians were
vitally concerned with such "problems" as:

Is the increase of Catholicism in the United States, ominous of evil?

Adelphic Minutes (Western Reserve), October 13, 1820. Affirmative.
Which has been the most prejudicial to mankind— Popery or Infidelity?

Linonian Minutes (Yale), June 14, 1820. Popery.

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 253

And despite the predominance of the vital and the timely, the socie-
ties continued to debate such "old saws" as the execution of Mary of
Scotland and the relative military merits of Caesar and Hannibal.

During the period 1840 to I860, the Southern societies retained much
of their vigor. The younger Western societies continued to expand.
And even in the old Northern halls, where the exercises were often
cancelled because of the lack of preparation, debating remained the
primary exercise.

As in the previous decades, only the bounds of curiosity confined the
limits of the debate topics. There was, however, a slight change in the
frequency of the topics entertained. International affairs and foreign
policy edged out slavery and secession in many societies as the war
clouds threatened, and in the West education became increasingly
popular as a source for debate topics. It is interesting, also, to note that
many of the Southern societies abandoned the objectivity which marked
much of their previous argumentation concerning slavery. Partisanship
was generally the order after 1850 although some debaters (and some
of their elders) hoped for compromise.

An idea of the interests, attitudes, and widespread intellectual curios-
ity of the undergraduates may be obtained from the following random
listing of topics debated from 1840 to 1860:

Would a congress for international arbitration be desireable and prac-
ticable? PMermenian Minutes (Brown), April 19, 1851. Negative
11-5.

Would it be expedient for the U.S. to grant the petition of the Canadas
requesting admission into the Federal Union? Phi Delta Minutes
(Western Reserve), April 2, 1845. Negative.

Resolved that a dissolution of the Union would be beneficial to the
South. Licivyronian Minutes (William and Mary), October 26, 1844.

Should South Carolina take the lead in the Southern cause? Euphradian
Minutes (South Carolina), March 27, 1858. Affirmative.

Should Negroes be admitted to Yale College? Brothers in Unity Min-
utes (Yale), March 16, 1859.

Should a larger part of the college course be devoted to the study of the
English language and literature? Phi Delta Minutes (Western Re-
serve), February 26, 1859.

Resolved that the present method of spelling is preferable to the
Phonetic method. Young Ladies Literary Society Minutes (Oberlin),
May 5, 1852.

Ought the U.S. Gov. to suppress Mormonism by force? Dialectic Asso-
ciation Minutes (Oberlin), September 10, 1844.

Are laws prohibiting immigration in any case justifiable? Clariosophic
Minutes (South Carolina), January 29, 1842. Negative.

Is the tariff for manufacturing for the country's good? Erosophic Min-
utes (Alabama), May 31, 1845.

Resolved that the right of suffrage should be granted to females. Young
Ladies Association Minutes (Oberlin), October 9, 1850.

254 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Resolved-That the sale of ardent spirits ought to be prohibited by law.

United Brothers Minutes (Brown), September 30, 1854,
Is Masonry compatible with our free institutes? Phi Delta Minutes

(Western Reserve), December 23, 1840.

Although the Western societies continued to sponsor vigorous literary
sessions throughout the period 1860-1881, the older societies of the
South and the North were not so fortunate, and many expired during
the war or shortly thereafter. Largely responsible for their decline was
the rise of athletics, the popularity of the social fraternities, the compe-
tition of music clubs, dramatic clubs, and similar specialized organiza-
tions, the slow but gradual liberalization of the curriculum with a
consequent influx of non-forensic minded students, the spread of
the periodicals and other competing forms of communication, and the
loosening of administrative regulations which removed many of the
initial causes for the founding of the societies. But where the adminis-
trations were young and vigorous, as in the West, or where tradition
was hallowed, as at Princeton, the societies held their own. And where
the societies remained, forensics were featured.

In the South, immediately preceding the conflict, student attention,
as in the period 1840 to 1860, was largely centered about the problems
introduced by slavery and national policies with some attention paid to
sex and the ancient academic "saws." Once the war started, however,
there was relatively little time spent on vital issues. Escape topics fur-
nished most of the subjects for what debating was done. But once the
war ended, the awakening or surviving societies returned to a semblance
of their former concern over national and, to a lesser degree, interna-
tional affairs, and to heated discussions of the old "saws" which con-
tinued to appeal to the oratorically-minded Southern speaker.

Remaining records indicate that the Northern halls retained their
interest in affairs of state throughout the entire pre-war and war years,
although several societies with a large Southern membership, like
Cliosophic of Princeton, eschewed the discussing of embarrassing topics
until the war was almost over. For a time, the old ethical, literary, and
historical questions made a strong comeback, but toward the end of the
period they were greatly outnumbered by topics taken from the vital
and pertinent areas of national, local, and, to a lesser degree, interna-
tional affairs.

In the West, student interest in slavery and its resultant complica-
tions was sustained throughout the entire period. During the war, topics
drawn from governmental policies and the field of education were par-
ticularly popular. And after the war, the period of reconstruction stimu-
lated many debates on national policies. The problems concerning
expansion and international happenings also appealed to society men.

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 255

In general, we can conclude that Northern and Western debaters,
during the 18707s and the beginning of the 1880's, were primarily inter-
ested in national, local, and international policies in that order, with a
range of interest that compares very favorably with that displayed
today.

A sampling of the more popular topics debated by collegians through-
out the country follows:

Should the South secede if Lincoln is elected? Demosthenian Minutes
(Georgia), October 13, 1860.

Ought Pres. Johnson to be impeached for treason at the coining session
of Congress? Linonian Minutes (Yale), October 31, 1866. Euphra-
dian Minutes (South Carolina), February 23, 1867.

Resolved that a student should pursue his college course with refer-
ence to some profession. Dialectic Minutes (Oberlin), November 6,
1860.

Resolved that all studies should be made elective during Junior and
Senior years. Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), March 9, 1871. Af-
firmative.

Should education be made compulsory in Alabama? Eiosophic Min-
utes (Alabama), April, 1878.

Would a general congress of nations be expedient? Phi Delta Minutes
(Western Reserve), March 14, 1860. Affirmative.

Should the negro be permitted to vote for elective offices? Demosthenian
Minutes (Georgia), March 26, 1867.

Ought the United States to permit unlimited immigration? Brothers in
Unity Minutes (Yale), January 11, 1870.

Resolved that athletics are carried to excess in the prominent American
Colleges. Philolexian Minutes (Columbia), November 11, 1880.

Does art or nature contribute more to the beauty of the ladies of the
present day? Cliosophic Minutes (Princeton), November 9, 1866.

Is language of Divine Origin? Peithessophian Minutes (Rutgers), Feb-
ruary 4, 1870. Affirmative.

Resolved "that communism is a practical and desireable method of gov-
ernment." Phi Delta Minutes (Western Reserve), December 17, 1881.
Negative.

Ought public opinion be regarded as the standard of right? Clariosophic
Minutes (South Carolina), April 19, 1873.

Ought there to be any legislation in regard to strikes? Brothers in Unity
Minutes (Yale), July 6, 1864. Negative.

Ought our Railroads to be in the hands of the Government? Phi Kappa
Minutes (Georgia), March 16, 1869.

Ought the Young men of Alabama to seek their fortunes in other States?
Philomathic Minutes (Alabama), April 30, 1875.

The Little Republics

We have endeavored to trace the origin of the literary and debat-
ing societies and we have examined the scope and influence of their
major literary exercise, debating. From such a survey, we can readily

256 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

conclude with William Jennings Bryan that the societies were "an im-
portant factor in school life. . . ." 30 But to many college men of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the societies were more than stu-
dent safety valves or substitutes for inadequate contemporary curricula.
They were, as to William H. Seward, by far the most important part
of the educational system,31 Although within the physical confines of
the colleges ancl, consequently, subject to college regulations, the socie-
ties were, in many respects, little republics, possessing a student-cen-
tered and a student-administrated discipline complete with awards and
punishments, carefully guarded rituals, specifically prescribed but easily
amended exercises, and, frequently, comfortable and even elaborate
quarters. For the Madisons, Websters, Calhouns, Choates, Evarts,
Stones, Wilsons, and their contemporaries, they furnished a climate of
opinion and a format for developing talents and personalities unequaled
by any other facet of college life or instruction— then or now.32

A perusal of college histories indicates that Jacob Beam's estimation
of the importance of the American Whig Society to its members during
the nineteenth century could be applied to most American literary
and debating societies during the eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries:

Throughout the century Whig stood to its members as something within the

physical limits of the College yet above it and transcending it Hence, we

hear with no surprise of the established principle that all collegiate exercises
are to be neglected before the exercises of this institution (1813) ; of the de-
bate decided, of course, in the affirmative "Are the exercises of this Hall of
more importance than the studies of the College?" (1821), and the settled
conviction many years later: "It is an acknowledged fact that the Hall train-
ing is as great a feature in the development of the intellectual life of the Col-
lege as any two departments of instruction" (1893).33

Founded to circumvent the social, literary, and forensic limitations
of the early American colleges, secret student clubs or societies closely
followed the founding of institutions of higher learning throughout the
country. Soon recognized by college administrations as valuable edu-
cational adjuncts and safety valves, the societies flourished throughout
the country until the middle of the nineteenth century. Then, especially
in the North, the rise of challenging extracurricular and social organi-
zations, the gradual liberalization of the curriculum, and the changing
complexion of the undergraduate body caused many of the old organi-
zations to lessen in influence and activity. In the South, the Civil War
weakened many colleges and, consequently, the college societies. After
the war, the societies never attained their earlier measure of popularity.
In the West, however, sponsored by strong administrative pressure, the
societies continued to grow in prestige until the end of the nineteenth

THE LITERARY SOCIETY 257

century, when, as in the North and South, intercollegiate debating tem-
porarily gave the old organizations new life.

During the period of their greatest influence, the societies initiated
many relatively new forms of debate and set up the framework for
academic debating as we know it today. More than that, they furnished
a place for college youth to try its literary, oratorical, and forensic wings
under the aegis of a closely knit social organization.

To students of education in general and of speech in particular, the
societies, through their records of topics debated and the methodologies
involved, offer an insight into the development of important contempo-
rary forms of debate and an understanding of the problems which
faced our ancestors. To some of us, they engender nostalgia.

Notes

1. In order to prevent these notes from assuming unwieldy proportions while
still retaining a primary function of indicating hard to find original sources, I have
omitted all references to the histories and catalogs of colleges mentioned in the text
except when material has been quoted. Also, I have eliminated references to the
sources of literary society records except in the case of several direct quotations.
The reader will notice that, whenever feasible, I have indicated the name of the so-
ciety and the exact date of the minutes or constitution consulted, so that the original
records, found for the most part in the libraries of the respective colleges, can be
traced with little difficulty.

I should like to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. Frank B. Davis, whose
"Literary Societies of Selected State Universities of the Lower South/' unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1949, furnished the topics listed
under the headings cf the Clariosophic, Euphradian, Demosthenian, and Phi Kappa
societies; and to Dr. Donald BL Ecroyd, who supplied the data listed under the
headings of the Philomathic and Erosophic societies of Alabama.

2. Alexander Cowie, Educational Problems at Jale College in the Eighteenth
Century (New Haven, 1936), p. 6.

3. Thomas Clap, The Annals of Yale College (New Haven, 1766), p. 86. See
also John A, Kouwenhoven, "The New York Undergraduate 1830-50," Columbia
University Quarterly, XXXI (June, 1930), 93-103.

4. William C. Lane, "The Telltale, 1721,'* Publications of the Colonial Society
of Massachusetts, XXI, 227-228.

5. Julius H. Tuttle, "The Philomusarian Club," Publications of the Colonial
Society of Massachusetts, XVIII, 79-84.

6. Records of the Speaking Club, 177-1781, I, 31. (MS. in the Harvard
University Archives.)

7. The Original Phi Beta Kappa Minutes, pp. 29, 31.

8. Quoted in a letter written by Miss Lora Wheeler, Reference Librarian, Uni-
versity of Utah, dated November 10, 1950.

9. Robert M. Gatke, Chronicles of Williamette (Portland, 1943), p. 292.

10. See David Potter, Debating in the Colonial Chartered Colleges (New York)
1944, pp. 5-32, 128-130.

11. College Records, September 17, 1750-April 23, 1778, a Copy of College
Book No. 7, p. 93. (MS. in the Harvard University Archives.)

12. Yale University Fellowship Club Records, Nov. 6, 1766-Feb. 6, 1767, (MS.
in the Yale University Library.)

13. The Original Phi Beta Kappa Minutes, p. 22.

258 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

14. Records of the Lineman Society, 1768-1790. (MS. in the Yale University

15. Aaron Dutton (A dissertation of the manner of rendering the exercises of the
Linonian Society pleasing and useful, Orations and Dissertations of the Linonian
Society, 1772-1802, pp. 39-40. MS. in the Yale University Library) puts it nicely:
"Extempore disputation requires as much study as written composition, & perhaps
more . . . [But] very many, who dispute extempore, pay little or no attention to the
question, till they come into the society, & depend principally upon the arguments
& observations, which the occasion shall suggest."

On the other hand, some ideas of how much time at least one forensic disputant
spent on preparing his society parts can be had by noting the following entries in
John Barent Johnson's diary ("Diary kept by John Johnson, April 10th, 1788 &
Beginning of 1789." MS. in the Columbiana Section of the Columbia University
Library): , _ r

January 16, 1789. ". . . home 8 -Sat up very late in writing a Dispute tor

Columbia Col. Society."

January 26, 1789. " . . wrote part of a dispute for Theol. Society

January 27, 1789. ". . . stud Greek-~& wrote a little (Disp.) "

February 6, 1789. "Stud. Dispute for to-morrow."

16. Minutes of the Trustees of Columbia College, III, Part 2, 6 May 1828 to 4
December 1837, p. 1738 Typed MS. in Columbia University Library. See also
Catalogue of the Officers and Students of Brown University . . . 1829-30, p. 18.

17. E.g., Constitution of the American Whig Society, 1875, p 204. MS. in the
Princeton University Library.

18. "Friendly," or non-decision debates occurred at an even earlier date. For
example, Northwestern's Hinman Society and Chicago's Tri Kappa Society first met
in 1873.

19. Constitution of the American Whig Society, 1807. MS. in the Princeton Uni-
versity Library.

20. Constitution of the Brothers in Unity, 1783. MS. in the Yale University
Library.

21. Constitution & Laws of the United Fraternity, May 29, 1857. MS. in the
Dartmouth University Library.

22. Constitution of the Linonian Society, 1835, p. 11. MS. in the Yale Univer-
sity Library.

23. Secretary's book of the Dialectic Association, 1839-43. MS. in the Oberlin
College Library.

24. Philermenian Society Records, 1798-1801. MS. in the Brown University
Library.

25. Constitution of the Philolexian Society, 1820. MS. in the Columbiana,
Columbia University Library.

26. Constitution of the Philermenian Society ( 1794-1864). MS. in the Brown
University Library.

27. Constitution of the American Whig Society, 1848. MS. in the Princeton
University Library.

28. Constitution of the Cliosophic Society (circa 1875). MS. in the Princeton
University Library.

29. Lane, op. cit., pp. 229-230.

30. William Jennings Bryan and Mary Baird Bryan, The Memoirs of William
Jennings Bryan (Philadelphia, 1925), p. 59.

31. Autobiography of William H. Seward (New York, 1877), p. 25.

32. See Hugo E. Hellman, "The Influence of the Literary Society m the Making
of American Orators/' Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVIII (February, 1942),
12-14; and Harry M. Williams, "Two Mid-Nineteenth Century Student Speeches,"
Speech Monographs, XVII (March, 1950), 75-77.

33. Jacob N. Beams, The American Whig Society of Princeton University
(Princeton, 1933), pp. 77-78.

Intercollegiate Debating

L. LEROY COWPERTHWAITE
A. CRAIG BAIRD

Intercollegiate debating is primarily an American institution. The
"firsfbf modern intercollegiate debates" occurred, according to Ralph
Curtis Ringwalt, when Yale met Harvard University at Cambridge,
January 14, 1892.1 "Intercollegiate debating," observed Ringwalt, "arose
in a natural reaction against the lax conditions of the literary societies
and against the lack of genuine interest in any form of public speaking
which for many years existed at Harvard and Yale, and, in fact, at
almost all Eastern Colleges." 2 Ringwalt, one of the most prominent
early writers to show an interest in college debating, recalls that around
1890 a group of young men who had had experience with interschool
debates among preparatory schools near Boston proposed that the
Harvard Union challenge other colleges to joint debates. The outcome
of this proposal Mr. Ringwalt recounts:

For two years these men were voted down with considetable ridicule. In
[the autumn of] 1891, however . . . Yale sent a challenge for a joint discus-
sion, and the opponents of the scheme in the Harvard Union having been
graduated or won over, the proposal was at once accepted. Representatives of
the two colleges met at Springfield and arranged for two debates, the first to
take place at Cambridge on January 14, 1892.

On this day, therefore, Harvard and Yale met on the platform in the first
of modern intercollegiate debates. The question was "Resolved, that a young
man casting his first ballot in 1892 should vote for the nominees of the
Democratic Party." Yale had the affirmative. The late ex-Governor William E.
Russell, of Massachusetts, acted as presiding officer. Though, in accordance
with the agreement, there were no judges, and, consequently, no formal de-
cision was given as to which side proved itself superior in the contest, the
meeting was very satisfactory; the audience was large, representative, and
enthusiastic, and the debating creditable.3

The news of these events soon reached other campuses, and within
four years intercollegiate debating had spread across the entire conti-

259

260 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

nent. The next year, 1893, the Whig and Cliosophic literary societies of
Princeton University journeyed to Yale for a debate. That same year,
according to the late Thomas C. Trueblood, the Middle West caught
the spirit, and Michigan and Wisconsin universities held their first
joint debate.4 Before the year was over Iowa and Minnesota partici-
pated in the first of a long and successful series of intercollegiate de-
bates through the medium of the Iowa-Minnesota Debate League,
organized at the conclusion of the first contest.5 During the 1894-1895
academic year Pennsylvania met Cornell and Stanford debated with
California. The following year, 1895-1896, Dartmouth, Bates College,
Williams College, Wesleyan University, Boston University, Western
Reserve, and the University of Chicago entered this new form of inter-
college rivalry.

The year J895 also brought an innovation in the structure of this new
intercollegiate activity when Princeton, Harvard, and Yale established
the first triangular debating league. In 1897, Michigan, Minnesota,
Northwestern, and Chicago universities formed the first quadrangular
league. "These universities/' wrote Trueblood, "debated each other in
"pairs in January, and tlje winners of the semi-finals contests came to-
gether in a final debate in April each year/* G This first Midwestern,
multilateral debate league, which served as a model for many others,
was at the end of eight years succeeded by a triangular arrangement
composed of the universities of Chicago, Michigan, and Northwestern,
the first of its kind to hold all debates simultaneously. According to
Professor R. I. Fulton, of Ohio Wesleyan University, the Ohio Inter-
collegiate Debate League was organized at Delaware on January 2,
1897, and included Ohio Wesleyan, Western Reserve, Oberlin, Ohio
State University. The first debates were held in May of that year.7

The next few years saw the rapid growth of debating in both num-
bers of institutions participating and the numbers of contests held.
Practically all the early debates were conducted on the basis of the
single debate "contract" arrangement, whereby one college challenged
another, the second accepted, and a contract setting forth the rules
and regulations of the contest was drawn up and signed by both parties.
Typical of the intercollegiate debating experiences of colleges and
universities during this early period were those of the State University
of Iowa, which, during her first decade (1893-1903) of intercollegiate
participation, took part in a total of eighteen annual contests with
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Chicago, and Illinois. All of Iowa's debates were
annual single events based on two-year "contracts."

Colleges evolved numerous rules and regulations governing the
arrangement of the contests ^Bdrthfeif conduct. Customarily the rules
specified the methods of selecting the question and the judges, the

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 261

criteria for judging, number and length of speeches, provisions for
financing the debate, and the like.

The participants agreed on a proposition, the entertaining school or
the challenger usually submitting a proposal subject to objection by the
opposing school. The constitution of the first debating league formed
by Iowa and Minnesota at Minneapolis on May 27, 1893, for example,
provided that the entertaining university should submit the question,
the other school to have twelve days in which to choose the side it
desired or to submit a new question.8 Although universally practiced,
this method of choosing the question frequently provoked disagree-
ment and foul play. According to Egbert Ray Nichols, much wrangling
and disagreement over meanings of terms was the usual result.9 The
subjects debated reflected clearly the political, economic, and sociologi-
cal issues of the time. Questions most frequently debated during the
first decade of intercollegiate activity dealt with such subjects as gov-
ernment ownership and operation of the telegraph system, interna-
tional bimetallism, further territorial extension of the United States,
municipal ownership and operation of street railways, direct election
of United States senators, a federal graduated income tax, and com-
pulsory arbitration of labor-management disputes.

The manner of selecting speakers for a debate was left to each insti-
tution. At first the literary societies selected the debaters from among
their membership. Trueblood observed that by 1907 some institutions
chose their representatives "by a series of class contests, others through
departments, as at Yale and Illinois, others through debating societies
or unions, as at Harvard, Princeton, Cornell and Wisconsin, or through
both societies and departments, as at Michigan." 10 Still later, with the
advent of the debate "coach," the "tryout" system became the general
practice, with competition campus wide. The league constitutions and
single debate "contracts'* usually specified that contestants must be
undergraduates currently attending the university represented.

Since early intercollege contests were characterized by a spirit of
rivalry, the selection of judges became a matter of supreme importance.
As in the selection of the question, tEe lists of judges proposed by the
opposing team were almost always examined with suspicion. To secure
an unprejudiced "jury," league constitutions and contractual agree-
ments dwelt at some length on such matters as the manner of selecting
the judges, their essential qualifications, and criteria for rendering a
decision. It early became the practice for the entertaining college to
submit a list of names from which the visiting college selected two
judges; the latter submitted a second list from which the entertaining
institution chose one. Emphasis was placed on securing judges promi-
nent in their fields. During the early years some judges were among the

262 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

most prominent citizens of the country. State supreme court judges,
congressmen, and university professors were the most frequently
chosen. Lawyers, ministers, and college presidents were also included.
Sometimes an eminent judge or presiding officer proved to be a major
drawing card for the contest, as, for example, when ex-President
Grover Cleveland presided at one of the early debates between Yale
and Princeton.11

Closely allied to the problem of selecting competent judges was that
of deciding what criteria should govern decisions. Nichols reports that
"sometimes a basis of fifty percent was suggested for argument and the
same for delivery, sometimes it was sixty for argument and forty for
delivery, or even seventy-five and twenty-five." 12 The first agreement
between Iowa and Minnesota instructed the judges to decide the debate
"solely on argument." 13 However, the constitution later drawn up by
these two institutions directed that judges should decide "according to
the stipulations governing the debate." 14 Subsequent contests served
to establish that the framers of the Iowa-Minnesota League constitu-
tion meant that the judges were to award decisions on the merits of
the debating, not on the merits of the question.

Another problem frequently arising during the first decade of inter-
collegiate debating was that of determining the proper order and
length of speeches. Since the three-speaker team ( sometimes referred to
as the University Plan or Harvard Plan) was universally used through-
out the early period, the length of speeches was important. During some
of the early contests audiences often sat for as long as three hours
before the debate could be concluded and the judges' decision read.
Like many of the other rules for conducting the debates, those govern-
ing the length and order of speeches were usually stipulated in consti-
tutions and agreements. Usually each speaker was allowed twenty min-
utes for constructive argument and the "leader" of each three-man team
an additional ten minutes for summing up the arguments, with the
affirmative speaking last. Another variation allotted the first and second
speakers on each side twenty minutes; the third affirmative, twenty-two
minutes; the third negative, twenty-three minutes; and finally, the
affirmative a four-minute rejoinder. Still a third variation, used par-
ticularly in the Middle West, allowed affirmative speakers twenty,
twenty-two and twenty-five minutes, with a four-minute "rebuttal" to
close the debate. The three negative speakers had twenty, twenty-two
and twenty-six minutes. By about the turn of the century most colleges
had adopted the plan then in use among Eastern leagues of permitting
fifteen-minute constructive speeches and five-minute rebuttals for each
speaker. Nichols attributes to the Middle West the idea of placing the
negative first in the rebuttal speeches.15 Thus the first decade of inter-

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING

collegiate debating witnessed the evolution of the "rebuttal" speech ar
a debating format used in formal college debating for many years.

Little doubt exists that intercollegiate debating was accepted wi1
enthusiasm by both the participants and the audiences. The annual coi
test evoked wide public interest and a rousing display of school spiri
The general public and the average university student viewed the d<
bate as primarily a contest— an "intellectual sport" characterized t
rules and regulations and motivated by the desire for victory. Georg
Pierce Baker of Harvard perhaps best expressed the trend of the day i
an address before the Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schoo
of the Middle States and Maryland at Philadelphia, December 1, 190(

At first it is, more than anything else, the fight, the spirit of the contest, tt
desire to show one's supremacy over someone else which interest our studen
in debating. ... I believe that intercollegiate debating should be placed c
the footing of an intellectual sport.16

The keen rivalry engendered by an intercollegiate contest made it
great event of the school year. Indeed, preparation for the annual d(
bate greatly resembled that made for a modern athletic contest, to tt
point of arousing wide public interest through extensive advertising i
newspapers, on billboards, and even the staging of "pep" rallies fo
lowed by parades through the city streets. Audiences were frequentl
large enough to necessitate the renting of a local theater or the civi
opera house. When Iowa debated Wisconsin at Milwaukee on Marc
31, 1899, the reviews described Davidson's Theater as "overflowing wit
the crowd," composed in part of large delegations from nearby schoo]
and colleges.17 On the occasion of the Oberlin-Adelbert College (c
Western Reserve University) debate, on May 5, 1897 in the Eucli<
Avenue Congregational Church in Cleveland, about one hundred am
fifty Oberlin students and teachers travelled on a specially charterer
train to Cleveland to hear the debate.18

Colleges vied with one another to see who could make the occasio
of an intercollegiate debate the most memorable. Not infrequent!)
visiting debate teams found upon their arrival at the railway statio
special reception committees to escort them to the local hotel, wher
all arrangements for their stay had been made in advance. It was als
the custom, in addition to the regular banquet immediately followin
the debate, for the president of the college or university to entertai
both teams in his home. For the audiences, added attractions, such a
musical selections, frequently spiced the lengthy verbal battles. Th
Oberlin-Adelbert debate of 1897 was described by Auer as follows
"While the Mather Glee Club and the Adalbert Mandolin Club offere-

264 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

tive side of the question 'Resolved, That Trusts or Combinations which
tend to monopolize any industry should be prohibited by law.' " 19

To the literary societies must go the major credit for nurturing and
loyally supporting active intercollegiate debate programs. Through the
voluntary action of the societies intercollegiate debating got its start.
They planned and financed the early events. Through systematic pro-
grams of training begun with the Freshman society member, the socie-
ties prepared their speakers for intercollegiate competition. In addition
to providing varied opportunities for training in extemporaneous debat-
ing, the student organizations not infrequently hired at considerable
expense private instructors in elocution to assist their teams with deliv-
ery. Even special research teams were sometimes appointed to assist
the debaters in preparing their cases.

Although the literary societies shouldered most of the responsibili-
ties for the preparation of debating teams, more and more the debaters
themselves sought help among the faculty wherever and whenever they
could get it. Thus the professor of English, history, or economics volun-
tarily assumed a new responsibility. Although trained faculty supervi-
sion of the debating program was not the rule until well into the second
decade of intercollegiate competition, the "coaching system" began to
appear by the close of the first decade. A few institutions, notably the
universities of Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa, had by the turn of the cen-
tury organized "departments" of speech, but the departments had little
or nothing to do with intercollegiate debating, which existed purely as
an extracurricular activity. Not until well into the second decade of
intercollegiate debating did speech departments begin to assume re-
sponsibility for or jurisdiction over this popular "intellectual sport/'

In the period 1904-1913, intercollegiate .debating continued to ex-
pand rapidly and at the same time sought to improve itself.

Debating leagues increased in number and variety. With the Ghicago-
Michigan-Northwestern triangular experiment as a pattern, many new
leagues sprang up across the country. Typical was the "I-M-I League,"
composed of the universities of Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois.

Quadrangular leagues were also to be found during this second
decade, that of Swarthmore, Franklin and Marshall, Dickinson, and
Pennsylvania State College being among the best known. When the
Chicago-Michigan-Minnesota-Northwestern league broke up in 1906,
Minnesota joined the universities of Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin and Ne-
braska to form the Central Debating League of America, popularly re-
ferred to as the "Five-Cornered/' "Quintangular," and "Pentangular"

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 265

league. This new plan amounted to a double triangular arrangement,
in which, if the affirmative and negative teams each debated twice, each
member institution could meet the others annually. This fact was prob-
ably responsible for the immediate popularity of the five-member
leagues organized across the country. Typical of these pentangular
arrangements was the league composed of the universities of Arkansas,
Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Texas. The universities of
Georgia, Virginia, and North Carolina joined with Tulane and Vander-
bilt in a similar organization.

Also from the basic triangular plan emerged yet another type of de-
bating arrangement. The triangular league required each member insti-
tution to prepare teams on both sides of the question— a significant
departure from the old single-debate contract plan. Hence, when one
member of the league defaulted, the two remaining members, rather
than be deprived of debating opportunities for one of their teams,
simply matched these teams against one another on the same evening
as in the triangular arrangement. This "dual plan" survived all other,
more complex procedures.

Although the single-debate contract plan continued in use through
the second decade of intercollegiate debating, the various league ar-
rangements rapidly became popular, possibly because they effectively
solved such problems as the choice of a question and of sides, the time
and place of contests, and similar difficulties that had long been the
source of dispute and friction under the single-debate contract pro-
cedure. Nichols also alleges that those responsible for debating activi-
ties saw a boon to debate preparation in the league requirement that
each institution make ready teams on both sides of the question.20

The road of rapidly expanding intercollegiate debate activity was
not altogether smooth. One of the many difficulties was that of finance.
During the first decade, when intercollegiate activity was limited in
most universities and colleges to one or two engagements per year, the
literary societies managed to meet expenses from their regular treas-
uries, supplemented frequently by small admission charges to the de-
bates. Increased activity, however, required additional funds. Since
debate was definitely outside the regular curriculum, appeals to ad-
ministrative authorities for assistance were usually without success. In
search of supplementary sources of revenue, literary societies spon-
sored university lecture series, plays, and musical concerts. For many
groujps, debating was financed through the student activity fee, devised
early in the century, which the student, upon matriculating, paid in a
lump sum for his admission to athletic events, plays, and debates, and
for his subscription to the college paper. If only partial and sometimes
transitory, these "solutions" to financial problems opened the way for

266 RHETOBIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

even larger debate schedules and also made possible later the "guar-
antee" to the visiting team with the advent of the debate trip.

Perhaps the chief characteristic of the second decade was a con-
certed effort to improve the quality of intercollegiate debating. In large
measure, improvement manifested itself in four areas: (1) the struggle
for academic recognition, (2) development of improved methods of
debate preparation and delivery, (3) the devising of means for re-
warding proficiency in the art of debating, and (4) the administration
of the intercollegiate forensic program.

By the second decade, student debate leaders were successful in
their efforts to persuade a member of the faculty to assume the extra
duty of "coaching" intercollegiate teams in the final stages of their prep-
aration for debate contests.21 The next stage of the evolutionary process
found the "coach" assisting in the selection of the debaters by the
"tryout" system. Soon there appeared on every campus that relatively
small group of ardent debaters referred to as the "debate squad." With
the rapid increase in the number of annual intercollegiate contests came
what seemed the inevitable student demand for academic credit. As a
result, many "coaches" organized courses in argumentation and debate;
the intercollegiate participant enrolled and thus received credit. A few
institutions allowed credit specifically for intercollegiate participation
by a vote of the faculty upon recommendation of the "coach." Thus,
although intercollegiate debating continued to be thought of as an "out-
side" activity, in the second decade it gained curriculum status.

In keeping with academic associations, the best debates received
publication and were thus available for study and criticism. In 1908
Harvard and the University of Chicago published full-length debates
in pamphlet form. That same year the H. W. Wilson Company of Min-
neapolis started the Debate Handbook Series, followed a few years
later by the University Debater's Annual and the Reference Shelf series.
In 1909 Professor Paul M. Pearson, editor of The Speaker, compiled and
edited the first volume of Intercollegiate Debates, consisting of a con-
densation of the arguments of twenty-three college debates and of one
debate carried in full. In 1911, Brooldngs and Ringwalf s Briefs for De-
bate appeared.

Ffhe advent of the faculty director or "coach" brought decided im-
provement in methods of preparation and delivery. Many of the earliest
intercollegiate contests had little of the extemporaneous adaptation char-
acteristic of debate in later years. The general practice was for each
speaker to write his speech in full, commit it to memory, and, at the
proper time, recite it much as he would an oration. Not infrequently
the cases of opposing teams failed to "clash^pnd the result was, accord-
ing to Nichols, "an exhibition of adroit maneuvering, clever interpreta-

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 267

tion, and carefully planned strategy to avoid pitfalls and to force the
opposition to defend its weaknesses and to meet the strong point of its
antagonists." 22 Even the rebuttal speeches were "canned." To correct
these defects, the coaches instituted what came to be popularly known
as the "block system" of speech preparation. With this method, all de-
baters, except the first affirmative speakers, were directed to prepare
paragraphs or "blocks" of arguments on all the conceivably important
issues that might arise during a debate. By committing these "blocks"
to memory, the debater could, during the course of the debate, select
and assemble such "blocks" as would result in a direct challenge to the
opponents' case. Blocked rebuttal answers were likewise prepared in
advance. Before long, however, the tediousness of the block method led
both coaches and students to move further in the direction of extempo-
raneous debating. Progress was manifest during the second decade,
when debaters began allotting time for preliminary extempore refuta-
tion at the beginning of constructive speeches. Some coaches directed
the first two speakers on each side to present the prepared constructive
case, leaving the third speaker free to extemporize and thus try to
insure a direct clash of arguments.

Another factor leading to the improvement of debating was the inter-
est shown by colleges, and especially by university extension divisions,
in high-school debating and debaters. Seeing the high schools as an
excellent source of college debaters, many colleges and universities en-
couraged the formation of high-school debate leagues. The leagues were
later amalgamated into state-wide organizations. Local, district, and
finally state debate championships were determined under the auspices
of the sponsoring university. Thus, during the second decade of inter-
collegiate debating, students who had received debate training in high
school began to enter the ranks of the college debate squads.

As a further inducement to better debating, many institutions early
adopted the practice of awarding cash prizes, cups, and plaques for
individual achievement. Some colleges instituted "presentation day" at
the end of the debating season. On this occasion, debaters received
medals and a college letter to be worn on the coat or sweater.

Another form of recognition for excellence in intercollegiate f orensics
which had its roots in this early period was the forensic honor society.
Desiring to give appropriate recognition for work of merit in inter-
collegiate debating, Professors E. E. McDermott, of the University of
Wisconsin, and H. E. Gordon, of the State University of Iowa, proposed
in November, 1904, a national forensic honor society patterned in the
Phi Beta Kappa tradition. In April, 1906, representatives from the uni-
versities of Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin,
Chicago, and Northwestern met at the Victoria Hotel in Chicago and

268 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

organized Delta Sigma Rho, the first honor society of its kind in the
United States. Provisions were made to establish chapters in each of
the member schools with charter membership limited to those institu-
tions represented at the founders' meeting. By the close of the decade,
Delta Sigma Rho could boast twenty-five chapters limited mainly to the
large universities.23 In 1908 a second national forensic honor society,
Tau Kappa Alpha, was organized at Butler College, Indianapolis, by
representatives of Butler, Wabash, and Depauw. Organized at first on
the basis of state chapters to which forensic honor students of the vari-
ous colleges within each state might belong, Tau Kappa Alpha later
reorganized to permit a local chapter in each college. By the end of the
decade the third honor society, Pi Kappa Delta, was founded. Accord-
ing to Professor Nichols, one of its founders, it met the demand of the
small colleges for an honor award and organization.24 Election to mem-
bership in one of these forensic honor societies, which carried with it
the privilege of wearing the society key, became the highest honor that
could be conferred upon an intercollegiate debater.

Although the early intercollegiate debates were held under the names
of institutions, they were not in reality contests between universities or
colleges. Actually they were conceived, planned, and carried out by
and among the various literary societies on the campuses. However, as
the responsibilities for administering an ever-expanding intercollegiate
program reached proportions too great for the societies independently
or collectively to handle, administration was gradually shifted to a cen-
tral agency representative of the institution as a whole. Hence, the sec-
ond decade witnessed the rise of the university or college Forensic
Association or Debate Council, which, in conjunction with the "coach,"
assumed the responsibilities of administering all intercollegiate debate
activities. Intercollegiate debating was then no longer restricted to
literary society members; any undergraduate in good standing was
eligible to participate as a representative of the university or college.
The "tryout" system further broadened the field of selection, thus sharp-
ening the competition for a place on the Varsity" team and improving
the general quality of debating,

III

The Jthird decadet of intercollegiate debating in the United States
(1914-1923) was a period at fur ther growth, and expansion character-
izecpby e^emaentati.on with new forms and methods^. Although tem-
porarily retarded by *We*H War 1, the general tr6fiS in intercollegiate
debating pointed toward increased activity, culminating in a program

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 269

whose magnitude and substance reflected the far-reaching effects of
forensic endeavor on both the national and international scene.

Influenced perhaps in part by a desire to meet debate teams from
more distant places and by the urge to use a laboriously prepared de-
bate case in more than one or two debates, coaches and debaters were
not content with the two or three annual contests provided by league
arrangements. The interstate character of some of the triangular and
other multilateral leagues had already introduced the idea of a "debate
trip." The University of Denver was the first institution to schedule
more than one debate on a trip into neighboring states. In 1913 a
Denver team journeyed to Kansas and debated Ottawa University on
April 16, and to Missouri for an engagement with William Jewell Col-
lege on April 18. 25 Almost immediately other colleges and universities
began sending teams on cross country tours until by 1916 the debate
trip had become a popular feature.

World War I drastically curtailed intercollegiate debating. Men's
literary societies suspended activities, and in the 1917-1918 academic
year, college debating, along with most extracurricular pursuits, vir-
tually ceased.

Postwar intercollegiate debating assumed a new dimension when, in
1921, debaters of Bates College, Lewiston, Maine, gained national at-
tention by conceiving and carrying out the first international debate, a
trip to Oxford University, England.26 The debate took place before the
Oxford Union on June 16, 1921, with the Bates College team uphold-
ing the aflBrmative of the proposition, "Resolved, that this House ap-
proves the American policy of non-intervention in European affairs." 27
The following year, 1922, Oxford reciprocated by sending a team to the
United States for a return engagement with Bates College and for addi-
tional debates with Swarthmore, Columbia, Yale, Harvard, Princeton,
and the University of Pennsylvania.

The third decade of intercollegiate debating witnessed expansion in
another direction when women were admitted to the platform. In Jan-
uary, 1897, the University of Wisconsin, in reply to a challenge from
the University of Iowa, had refused to permit her young ladies to par-
ticipate in an intercollegiate debate, giving as her reason that ". . . ladies
in that capacity do no credit either to themselves or to co-education in
general." 28 Throughout the early years of intercollegiate forensic com-
petition the appearance of women upon the public platform continued
to be viewed with disfavor.

Women's societies began in earnest to promote debating activities at
about the beginning of the third decade of intercollegiate forensics.
Not until the postwar period, however, did appreciable numbers of

270 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

women debaters actually appear on the intercollegiate platform. On
May 12, 1921, purportedly the first women's intercollegiate debate in
the Middle West occurred when a women's team from the University of
Indiana visited the campus of the State University of Iowa to debate
the issue of Philippine independence.29 By 1923 college women, par-
ticularly in the Midwest, were debating along with men.

College debating was not without its critics. As early as 1913 debate
and debating practices as they had developed in the colleges and uni-
versities over the previous twenty years became the object of wide-
spread criticism from the public at large and from academic circles as
well. Public criticism, led by persons no less prominent than Theodore
Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan, questioned the moral sound-
ness of coaching methods, then prevalent, of requiring college debaters
to argue on both sides of a question without regard for their personal
convictions.30 Although the friends and defenders of college debating
managed to withstand public censure, academic criticism led to
changes. Educators centered on what many of them thought to be an
unhealthy stress upon winning the judges' decisions. Widespread dis-
satisfaction was expressed also over the choice of judges and judging
methods.

The first noticeable reaction in debating circles to criticism of judged
debates was the complete abolition of the decision. According to H. S.
Woodward, the first non-decision debates were held in Ohio in 1914-
1915. 31 Later a further innovation was added to the "judgeless" debate
when members of the audience were invited to express opinions on the
issue under discussion at the close of the formal debate. Thus was born
the "open forum discussion."

Directors of debating argued heatedly on the issue of decision versus
non-decision debates. According to Enid Miller, this argument and the
dispute over methods of judging occupied more space than any other
questions in the literature of speech education immediately following
World War L32 Early issues of the Quarterly Journal of Public Speak-
ing carried numerous articles, most notable of which was a series of
written debates between Professor H. N. Wells of the University of
Southern California Law School and Professor James M. O'Neill of the
University of Wisconsin Department of Speech.33

By the spring of 1920 the popularity of open forum, non-decision de-
bating had spread through the Middle West. Many of the debate
leagues adopted this system, among them the 1-M-I League," all of
whose debates during the 1920-1921 season were of the "judgeless,"
audience-participation type. Renewed debate contracts often specified
the use of the non-decision method. Although this new emphasis on
decisionless debating continued to be popular through the remainder

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 271

of the third decade, the issue of decision versus non-decision debates
was by no means resolved, as later developments reveal.34

Although the open forum debate proved to be popular with au-
diences, many debaters and debate directors believed that the judges'
decision was essential to effective debating. To them the logical alterna-
tive to the old three-judge panel with its admitted evils was the expert
critic judge. First used in the high-school debating leagues of Kansas
and Iowa in 1915-1916, the critic judge quickly found favor. He was
an "expert" in debate technique and methodology; at the close of de-
bate he announced which team had done the more effective debating
and went on to explain in a short critique the reasons for his decision.
The critic judge was usually a director of debate or teacher of public
speaking from a neutral or disinterested institution.35

As the pendulum had swung in the two years following World War I
from decision to non-decision debating, by the 1922-1923 debating
season it had swung back again in the direction of contest debating
wittj-Jthe expert critic judge as referee. Thus, after nearly three decades
marke3"*witri controversies as to the eligibility, even the integrity, of
judges, and with the virtual elimination of judges' decisions, most of
the advocates of intercollegiate debating, in the Middle West at any
rate, finally settled upon the critic judge as the best solution to their
problems. Despite the competitive motive, which emerged repeatedly
in the intercollegiate debate program, the critic judge worked well and
won the confidence of coaches and debaters for fair and equitable deci-
sions. Furthermore, from his explanation and criticism, everyone could
profit. He fitted into a system that was more interested in education
than in sport.

In the last years of the third decade, American debaters were
influe1ice3r""t)y the* English style of debating. Characterized by its
conversaffdnal mode, wittiness, and its stress upon audience persua-
sion, the"Oxford, or British, style of debating had a significant and pro-
found" effect jja tempering the legalistic formalism of American debat-
ing^-6-Also the Oxford "split team" system— each team of two members
made up of one debater from each of the participating institutions—
probably helped to minimize the "sport" aspect of American debating
sometimes evident in a "support the home team" attitude among audi-
ences. The British debaters, stressing the importance of audience per-
suasion and unfamiliar with the American custom of awarding a deci-
sion on the merits of the debating, usually requested that audiences be
permitted to vote on the merits of the question instead. Hence, the close
of the third decade of intercollegiate debating saw the appearance of
the "audience decision" debate. In some instances, audiences were
asked to vote on the question both before and after the formal debate

272 KHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

with a "shift-of -opinion" ballot replacing the judge's formal decision.
Thus, by the end of the third decade intercollegiate debating had
taken on a new character and vitality. The dormant position into which
debating had slumped during World War I gave place to renewed
interest, both on the part of debaters and the general public. Audience
participation, while not generally thought to be a prime motive for
increased student interest, nevertheless materially transformed tradi-
tional debating from an intellectual sport characterized by a legalistic
formalism designed to win victories over opponents, to a more realistic
means of presenting live issues to interested listeners and of helping
college youth to speak well.

By 1923 college debating had seen most of its major developments.
In conclusion we need only to observe now that the forces which estab-
lished intercollegiate debate have been vigorous enough to keep it in
good health. International debating continued to expand. New adapta-
tions were introduced— cross-examination, direct-clash, and heckling
debates— and radio enabled the debater to reach larger audiences* »The
most important new direction was the debate tournament, which al-
loWecI debaters to meet several colleges at one location with minimum
expense. "Colleges experimented also with legislative assemblies as a
realistic setting for the student speaker. Although audiences have
dwindled since the early years, debate has adjusted its methods to
appeal to young men and women who are interested in broad and
rigorous educational experience, who find pleasure in intellectual com-
petition with their peers, and who wish to develop some facility in the
adaptation of facts and arguments on public questions to the occasion
and audience.

The immediate success and popularity enjoyed by the first debates
with British teams soon led to the sponsorship of international debating
by the Institute of International Education, which assumed the respon-
sibility for arranging tours both in the United States and abroad. Teams
from Oxford, Cambridge, and many municipal universities alternated
in making annual pilgrimages to the United States. Beginning in the
1920's, debate teams from Australia, Ireland, Turkey, Germany, and
the Philippine Islands appeared on American platforms. Not to be out-
done by their foreign competitors, American debaters traveled abroad
in ever increasing numbers. In 1927, the University of Oregon sent a
team on a tour westward around the world, visiting Hawaii, Australia,
India, and England en route. The following spring the Bates College
debaters traveled westward across the continent and on around the

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 273

world. The next year a State University of Iowa team made a two
weeks7 tour of eighteen British colleges and universities. Except for a
temporary interruption by World War II, international debating con-
tinued to flourish under the administrative responsibility of the Inter-
national Institute of Education, with the Committee on International
Debate of the Speech Association of America acting as a liaison agency
for the selection of debaters on a nation-wide basis to represent Ameri-
can colleges and universities abroad. Although considerable contro-
versy developed concerning the educational justification of these ex-
change debates, few would argue that international debating failed
to live up to the function envisioned by its sponsors, namely, that of
fostering international good will and understanding.37

With the widespread use of the radio came further opportunity for
the expansion and development of college debating. At first, those insti-
tutions fortunate enough to be near commercial broadcasting stations
experimented with educational programs, among which were frequent
college debates. Within a few years many of the larger institutions had
their own broadcasting stations through which numerous intercollegiate
debates were "aired." Perhaps the outstanding radio debate of the
early period occurred when Iowa, the Western Conference League
"champion" of 1932-1933, met Bates College, Eastern Intercollegiate
League winners, on October 28, 1933. The debate was broadcast over
the WJZ chain of the National Broadcasting Company, with the Iowa
debaters speaking from a Chicago studio and the Bates team from a
Boston station. With the rapid growth in the number of educational
broadcasting units on college and university campuses, more and more
debates were arranged for broadcasting. The influence exerted by this
important medium upon the general quality and nature of debating
would be difficult to assess. The presence of an unseen audience repre-
senting a cross section of the population necessitated more concen-
trated training in adapting to listeners' needs and interests as well as
in improved techniques of delivery.

Mounting dissatisfaction among debate directors with the traditional
form of college debating led to further experimentation with new forms
and methods. Non-decision and open forum debating accompanied by
the use of the "shift-of-opinion" ballot became increasingly popular.
The "split-team" procedure to direct attention to the issues rather than
to the speakers was also widely employed. Among the most frequently
used of the new forms was the "Oregon Plan/' which featured cross-
examination of each speaker by a member of the opposing team at the
close of each constructive speech.38 Still another innovation was the
"direct clash" method, which called for the thorough threshing out of
each major issue in the debate by both sides before proceeding to the

274 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

next. Quite popular for a time was the "heckling" debate, which, as its
title implies, was designed to discourage memorized speeches by per-
mitting a debater to be interrupted for questioning by an opponent. All
of these innovations were designed to encourage an extemporaneous
style of debating.

Probably the most significant of the later developments in intercol-
legiate debating was the inauguration of the debate tournament, which
allegedly originated in 1923 at Southwestern College, Winfield, Kan-
sas.39 This new method of conducting intercollegiate debates called for
the converging of several debate teams upon one college or university
campus for a period of one or more days. It achieved almost immediate
popularity. The earliest tournaments were of the "invitational" type, in
which a particular college, upon deciding to sponsor such an event,
invited a number of other schools to send participants and usually
judges as well. The first national tournament, according to Nichols, was
sponsored by Pi Kappa Delta at its national convention in Estes Park,
Colorado, in 1926.40 Soon the tournament idea spread over the West
and Middle West and then over the nation.

Besides greatly enhancing opportunities for increased numbers of
intercollegiate debates at minimum expense, the tournament brought
significant changes in debating methods and techniques— changes that
largely determined the character and scope of college debating. In
order to hold several "rounds" of debate in one or two days, the length
of speeches was reduced to ten minutes for constructive and five min-
utes for rebuttal speeches. Although early tournaments made use of the
traditional three-speaker team, tournament efficiency was in large
measure responsible for the advent of the two-speaker system. With the
national tournament came the necessity for selecting a national debate
question. Finally, the tournament brought a renewed emphasis on
contest debating, even though many non-decision or "practice" tourna-
ments were held. Tournament debating also meant speaking almost
entirely without popular audiences, indeed, the real audience was often
the critic judge.

Yet another highly significant trend in modern debating practice was
the emergence of parliamentary debating carried out as a student legis-
lative assembly.41 In invitational forensic conferences across the land
students proposed resolutions and "bills," discussed them in committee
and conferences, and emerged from the final stages of a "discussion pro-
gression" with a series of resolutions introduced in the form of bills and
debated by the entire assembly sitting as a legislature. Sponsors of these
legislative sessions held that in addition to providing excellent oppor-
tunities for training in extemporaneous, problem-solving debating, they
served also to increase student interest in social-political problems, to

INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATING 275

equip them further for the responsibilities of leadership in civic affairs,
and to show relationships between discussion and advocacy in the
deliberative process.

Although the competitive elements continued to evoke enthusiasm
among superior debaters, the tendency of colleges and universities was
to relate forensics more and more closely to general educational aims
and classroom instruction. The educational values of the forensic pro-
gram for the functions and purposes of a democratic society were rec-
ognized as playing an indispensable role in the struggle for survival. If
free speech, basic to the American system, is to serve democracy
properly, discussion and debate will continue as essential educational
disciplines.

Notes

1. Ralph Curtis Ringwalt, "Intercollegiate Debating," Forum, XXII (January,
1897), 633.

According to Ewbank and Auer, "the first intercollegiate debate seems to have
taken place in 1883 between Knox College and the Rockford Female Seminary on
the 'Social benefits and evils of the lavish expenditure of wealth by the rich/ "—
Henry Lee Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer, Discussion and Debate: Tools of a Democ-
racy (New York, 1951), p. 383.

2. Ringwalt, op. cit., p. 633.

3. Ibid.

4. "Forensic Training in Colleges," Education, XXVII (March, 1907), 387.

5. Vidette-Reporter (Iowa City), June 3, 1893.

6. Trueblood, op. cit., p. 387.

7. Roy Diem, "History of Intercollegiate Debating in Ohio," Central States
Speech Journal, XX (November, 1949), 633.

8. Vidette-Reporter (Iowa City), November 16, 1893.

9. "The college submitting the question often cast it in trick form, hoping the
challenged debaters would choose before discovering any jokers or technical flaws
in the statement."— Egbert Ray Nichols, "A Historical Sketch of Intercollegiate
Debating: I/' Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXII (April, 1936), 218.

10. Trueblood, op. cit., p. 387.

11. Ibid., p. 390.

12. Nichols, op. cit., p. 218.

13. Vidette-Reporter (Iowa City), April 15, 1893.

14. Vidette-Reporter (Iowa City), November 16, 1893.

15. Nichols, op. cit., p. 217.

16. "Intercollegiate Debating," Educational Review, XXI (March, 1901), 245.

17. Daily lowan (Iowa City), April 1, 1899.

18. J. Jeffery Auer, "Debate Goes to Town," Oberlin Alumni Magazine, XXXV
(May, 1939), 8.

19. Ibid.

20. Egbert Ray Nichols, "A Historical Sketch of Intercollegiate Debating: II,"
QJS, XXII (December, 1936), 591.

21. Coaching had become so general by 1915 that Professor Frank H. Lane of
the University of Pittsburgh felt moved to contribute an article for the first issue of
the Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking asking just how far the faculty member
should go in aiding the student debater. 'Faculty Help in Intercollegiate Contests,"
Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking, I (April, 1915), 9-16.

22. Ibid., pp. 595-596.

276 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

23. For a detailed account of the history of Delta Sigma RIio see The National
Society of Delta Sigma Rho; History, Constitution, General Regulations (rev. to
1949).

24. The Forensic (March, 1923).

25. Intercollegiate Debates, IV, 429.

26. Editor's Note: Professor A. Craig Baird, co-author of this article, as director
of forensics at Bates College in 1921, was responsible for this first international
debate.

27. For a detailed account of this first international debate see The Gavel of
Delta Sigma Rho, IV (October, 1921), 6.

28. Vidette-Reporter Iowa City), January 14, 1897.

29. Iowa Alumnus (Iowa City), XVIII (May, 1921), 252.

30. For a review of earlier Roosevelt and Bryan criticisms see F. G. Moore's
"Where Men Debate Beliefs Not Statistics," The Outlook, CXXXII (1922), 55-56.

31. H. S. Woodward, "Debating Without Judges/' QJPS, I (October, 1915),
229-233.

32. "Development of Intercollegiate Debating in the United States, Including a
Specific Study in Northwestern and Chicago Universities," unpublished M.A. thesis,
Northwestern, 1926.

33. For a summary of the Wells-O'Neill discussion see H. N. Wells and J. M.
O'Neill, "Judging Debates," Quarterly Journal of Speech Education, IV (January,
1918) ,76-92.

34. For a discussion of open forum, decisionless debating as practiced through-
out the Middle West during the period immediately following World War I see
"The Decisionless Debate with the Open Forum," QJSE, VII (June, 1921), 279-291.

35. For a review of the arguments advanced in favor of the "expert critic judge"
method by its chief advocate, see L. R. Sarett, "The Expert Judge of Debate,"
QJPS, III (April, 1917), 135-139.

36. For an analysis and comparison of the American and British styles of de-
bating see A. Craig Baird, "Shall American Universities Adopt the British System
of Debating?" QJSE, IX (June, 1923), 215-222.

37. For a discussion of the educational values of international debating see A.
Craig Baird, "How Can We Improve International Debating?" QJS, XXXIV (April,
1948), 228-230.

38. For a detailed explanation of the "Oregon Plan" by its founder see J. S.
Gray, "The Oregon JPlan of Debating," QJSE, XII (April, 1926), 175-180.

39. F. B. Ross, "A New Departure in Forensics," The Forensic of Pi Kappa
Delta (November, 1923).

40. Nichols, op. cit., p. 272.

41. Syracuse University, according to Nichols, first used this technique during
the 1933-1934 season. Soon thereafter Pi Kappa Delta began sponsoring a student
legislative assembly as a regular feature of its national conventions.— Nichols, op.
cit., pp. 277-278.

In file spring of 1939 Delta Sigma Rho staged in Washington, D. C,3 the first
of a continuing series of national student congresses, held biennially.

Speech Education in
Nineteenth-Century Schools

GLADYS L. BORCHERS
LILLIAN R. WAGNER

The history of education during the nineteenth century in the United
States presents an interesting story of changing philosophies and meth-
ods which in many respects seems to reflect European patterns of edu-
cation. Thejiin^teenth centoy^witnessed the rise of the public school
systeH^as-we-iiiQw^it today, but neither its development nor the part
played in it by speech education can be understood without a glance
at_Amjpjican education prior to 1800.

Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries

New Englanders, who from the seventeenth through the nineteenth
centuries led the country in most educational innovations and improve-
ments, had a deep respect and zeal for learning as a "bulwark of Church
and State." Hence they confronted the problem of establishing a sys-
tem of education which would perpetuate their faith both by training
young men for the ministry and by educating all children for member-
ship in a sect. The colonists set up an educational system typically
British; it consisted of some training in religion and reading by the par-
ents or the apprentice-master (later "by a town school master), a Latin
grammar-school in larger places, and an English-type college to prepare
students for the ministry. "As in England also, the system was voluntary,
the deep religious interest which had brought the congregation to Amer-
ica being depended upon to insure all the necessary education and reli-
gious training." 1

The famous Massa^usetts Laws of 1642 and 1647 are considered
basic to the foundation of our national system. The first merely required
the councilman to check from time to time to see if the children were
being taught to "read and understand the principles of religion and the

277

278 BHETOKIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

capital laws of the country." The second, based upon German and
Dutch precedent rather than upon English, made the building of
schools mandatory. Accordingly, Massachusetts soon had elementary
schools for all its children and secondary schools in larger towns. Other
New England states soon followed this example. George Martin, late
nineteenth-century historian, says that the ideal was neither paterna-
listic nor socialistic:

The child is to be educated, not to advance his personal interest, but because
the State will suffer if he is not educated. The State does not provide schools
to relieve the parent, nor because it can educate better than the parent can,
but because it can thereby enforce the obligation it imposes.2

Elsewhere the American pattern varied. TheJ^ddle_Adantic states
favored the parochial type of school and later offered more opposition
to the establishment of the public school system. In the South, the
wealthy were largely instructed by private tutor and then sent to Eng-
land for their college years while the poor received their only instruc-
tion at home or in charity schools. Cubberley states that "classes in so-
ciety and negro slavery made common schools impossible, and the lack
of city life and manufacturing made them seem largely unnecessary." 3

During the Revolutionary period most grammar schools, academies,
and colleges were closed or were kept open only intermittently. Not
until the 1820's do we find any appreciable consciousness of education.
Horace Mann accounted for the hiatus by noting that the talents of our
most able men had been engrossed in the details of our struggle for
existence and the problems of setting up a new government without
precedence in the world.4 Furthermore, an agricultural society was far
more concerned with survival than with education or leisure. After the
War of 1812 Americans began to think of themselves as a definite, dy-
namic, democratic nation and to take cognizance of the value of educa-
tion. In this respect, however, neither the people nor the states were as
farsighted as the federal government had been. The Land Ordinance
of 1785 and later Congressional acts had given 80,000,000 acres of land
to the public schools; yet even in the early decades of the nineteenth-
century education was left largely in the hands of the church or of
private individuals. Any new interest in education led to the establish-
ment of academies and colleges rather than of schools for the general
public.

Educational Importations During the Nineteenth Century

Although contemporary educational thinking in Europe had been
affected by the philosophies of Rousseau, Locke, Pestalozzi, and others,
the only American importations during 1800-1820 were those concerned

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 279

with the inexpensive expansion of educational opportunities rather
than with the improvement of teaching methods and techniques. Chief
among these importations were the Infant School, the English charity-
school subscription societies, and the Lancasterian system. The Infant
School gradually replaced the older Dame Schools and finally led to
our public school primary departments; the school societies played a
sizeable role in our educational history until the middle of the century;
and the Lancasterian system, or monitorial school as it was usually
termed in the United States, maintained a certain popularity for a quar-
ter of a century. Because of its extremely low cost (about $1 to $3 per
pupil per year ) , it made education for all men within the reach of the
populace.5 From such beginnings, education in the nineteenth century
developed. Although teachers and schools differed in their philosophies
and methods, one is able to discern certain overall trends apparent dur-
ing the century.

Common Schools from 1800 to 1825

During this period the common schools, i.e., what today we call the
elementary system, represented approximately the same type of educa-
tion found in the early colonies as well as in Europe under the Refor-
mation several centuries earlier. Actually the times demanded no more
than this.6

Usually the schools and their equipment were of the poorest type.
Many of the teachers were extremely young, untrained, and inexpe-
rienced. The entire curriculum of most schools consisted of reading,
writing, spelling, and sometimes a little arithmetic, all taught in the
language of the people. Many parents considered any further education
"highly injurious for practical life." 7

Reports on early schools indicated that most of the day was devoted
to reading and spelling, for, as Boone remarks, "Spelling at first was not
distinct from reading; or rather, reading was not differentiated from
spelling." 8 Furthermore, all reading remained essentially oral until
the twentieth century. Thus speech education in elementary classes was
associated with oral reading where the greatest emphasis was consist-
ently placed upon aspects of audibility, articulation, enunciation, and
pronunciation. Bodily action received very little attention. Toward the
middle of the century we find an emphasis being placed upon under-
standing the material read.

280 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Emphasis Upon Reading

Some conception of the importance of reading in the grades may be
gained from the following quotation from the 1821 course of study for
primary grades in Boston:

The fourth or youngest class shall stand up with due ceremony at as great a
distance from the instructor as possible, and read with a distinct and audible
tone of voice in words of one syllable. No one of this class shall be advanced
to the third or higher class who cannot read deliberately and correctly in
words of one or two syllables.

No one in the third class shall be advanced to the second who cannot spell
with ease and propriety words of three, four, and five syllables, and read all
the reading lessons in Kelly's Spelling-book,

No one of the second class shall be advanced to the first class who has not
learned perfectly by heart, and recited, as far as practical, all the reading
lessons in Kelly's Spelling-book, the Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer;
all the stops and marks, and their uses in reading; and in Bingham's Spelling-
book the use of common abbreviations . . . the use of numbers and letters
used for numbers in reading; the catalogue of words of similar sound, but
different in spelling and signification; the catalogue of vulgarisms, such as
chimney, not cMmbley—vinegar, not winegar, etc.

Not one of the first class shall be recommended by the examining committee
to be received into the English grammar schools, unless he or she can spell
correctly, read fluently in the New Testament, and has learned the several
branches taught in the second class; and also the use and nature of pauses,
and is of good behavior. And each of the scholars, before being recom-
mended, shall be able to read deliberately and audibly, so as to be heard in
any part of the grammar schools.9

Children were taught to read by the slow and painful process of
mastering the alphabet, the ab's (ab, eb, ib, ob? ub, ac? ec, ic, etc.), tiben
words of one syllable, of two, of three, etc. The best description we
found of this process was quoted from Rev. Burton's The District School
as It Was.10

Procedures in oral reading seem to have been just as mechanical, for
skill in performance was gauged not by the ability to convey meaning
but by the ability to "speak up loud" and "mind the stops and marks/'
This last expression, frequently found in the literature, meant that the
child was taught to pause long enough to count one at a comma, two at
a semi-colon, three at a colon, and four at a period. Such an impersonal
procedure undoubtedly served a utilitarian purpose because frequently
the entire class read aloud together. Reading in unison may have been
the outgrowth of a similar and popular method of teaching spelling, for
the two were always closely integrated. In addition to the two injunc-
tions previously mentioned, the children were also taught to pay care-
ful attention to pronunciation and enunciation and to read fast enough

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 281

to cover a sizeable amount of material. Such were the "guide posts" to
good oral reading in the early part of the nineteenth century.11 Samuel
G. Goodrich in his memoirs of this period notes that such reading gen-
erally was performed "without a hint from the master" and that "repe-
tition, drilling, line upon line, precept upon precept, with here and there
a little touch of the birch— constituted the entire system." 12

Much of the responsibility for this mechanical approach should be
placed upon the inadequacy of teachers and the barren curriculum
which reflected not only the earlier European pattern but also a pioneer
life which offered few cultural advantages. Textbooks used at the time
placed considerable emphasis upon delivery. Marceline Erickson who
analyzed 152 readers used from 1785 to 1885 found that a large num-
ber of them placed major importance upon pronunciation and voice.13
The elocutionary movement of the eighteenth and nineteeth centuries
played its part also. The elocutionists stressed the importance of oral
presentation in delivery and felt that it should be of primary concern
to the teacher.14 In addition, the popular monitorial plan, by which the
teacher instructed the older children, each of whom in turn taught the
younger ones, may have encouraged the teaching of delivery. When a
teacher keeps but one step ahead of his class, he must have very
definite information about what and how he will teach. For such young
instructors, drill procedures in pronunciation and enunciation should
not have presented real difficulty. Neither would the injunction to
"speak up loud" and to cover a large amount of material have proved
troublesome. If we may accept contemporary reports, presentation of
the thought or mood of a selection was never a major concern except in
a few schools and therefore it placed no stumbling block in the path of
the neophyte teacher. What could be simpler then than to confine one's
helpful comments to "Pause for the count of one at a comma, two at a
semicolon, etc."?

New Authors in the Nineteenth Century

A survey of textbooks used in the early days would indicate some
of the emphases we have suggested. Noah Webster, in a letter to Henry
Barnard, stated that before his reader was published in 1785 most of
the books used had been the Bible, Testament, Psalter, and Thomas
Dilworth's Spellingbook, originally issued in 1740.15 William B. Fowle
also mentioned the reading lessons found in early spellers by Moore,
Fanning, and Perry.16 The highly moral content of readers undoubtedly
can be traced to the early religious fervor of the colonists as well as to
the great religious awakening in England and America. The following
reading lesson, which followed the mastering of one-syllable words in

282 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

Dilworth's speller, will indicate how textbooks fulfilled their moral
obligation:

No Man may put off the Law of God
The Way of God is no ill Way.
My Joy is in God all the Day
" Ian is a Foe to God.

My Joy is
A bad Ma

Most of the eighteenth-century readers had been by English authors
but William B. Fowle noted that, during the revival of common schools
following the Revolution, textbooks by Webster and Bingham super-
seded all previous ones. Martin accounts for their popularity by saying
that both their titles and their content appealed to the national spirit
fostered in America.17 Although these authors remained extremely
popular far into the nineteenth century, other authors appeared upon
the scene, including Fowle, Enfield, Murray, Scott, Leavitt, Adams,
Pierpont, and Cooke. The 1832 American Annals of Education listed
28 readers published before 1804 and 102 readers published by 1832.18

If the schools had followed the better textbooks of the period, me-
chanical and stereotyped procedures might not have dominated. For
example, the popular Columbian Orator by Caleb Bingham suggested
among other things that the initial impression of yoice and body was
important to an audience, that one should adjust the voice to the size
of the room and vary both the rate and pitch so as to avoid monotony
and an affected variety, that one should have variety in position and
use gesture, and that one should read as he would speak if he "could
arrive at that exactness." Unfortunately, not many teachers followed
such precepts in their classes; practice was not as good as precept.

Secondary Schools from 1800 to 1825

Secondary schools continued to reveal a wide variance from the ele-
mentary in curriculum offerings and in opportunities— a condition which
had also existed under the European church-controlled system both
before and after the Reformation. The influence of European humanism
was evident in the emphasis given to Latin, Greek, classical literature,
and rhetoric. These studies, prominent in the early Latin grammar
schools, continued as the staples of our educational system well into
the nineteenth century. This type of classical education, which had been
established within two decades after the landing of the Pilgrims, un-
doubtedly reflected popular demand. In 1640 one out of every two hun-
dred persons in New England was a college graduate! 19

The academies, started about 1750 and reaching their peak of im-
portance during the 1820's, reflected the later humanism of northern

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 283

Europe, -a -humanism essentially more democratic both in curricular
programming and in its aim at improving the lives of more than merely
the select few. This type of secondary education was devoted less to
the training for the ministry than to preparation for more ordinary
vocations. It reflected, more than the Latin grammar school had done,
the general secularization of the Renaissance as apart from one of its
phases, the Reformation. If the realism and rationalism of the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries influenced our educational system, the
effects are probably to be seen in the academies. We believe, however,
that their broadened curriculums were more directly the outgrowth of
American minds, like Franklin's, which recognized the need for a type
of training directly useful to the citizens of our continent.

A few examples drawn from school statutes show the trend and char-
acter of formal education in speaking and reading. The "Regulations
for Government of the School on Federal Street" stated that "public
Reading and Recitation be instituted," and that "a Public Speaking [be
held] as often as the Trustees shall see fit to order or permit them." The
1832 printed regulations for the Boston Latin Grammar School required
that "Reading English, both in prose and verse, with readiness and pro-
priety, shall be considered essential to every class." "Oratory" and
"declamation and exercises of a forensic kind" were taught at Exeter
while at Leicester "Reading and spelling were strongly recommended , . .
as at least a weekly exercise in the upper school" and public speaking
was "among the first branches taught in the English department." Here
Scott's Lessons in Elocution was used for the first class mentioned and
Blair for the second.20

The constitution of Andover for 1808 gives an indication of what was
to be taught in such courses when it specifically mentions invention,
disposition, style, delivery, and memory. Ebenezer Porter, who held
the Bartlett Professorship of Sacred Rhetoric at Andover from 1813 to
1831, indicates that his textbook, An Analysis of the Principles of Rhe-
torical Delivery, was based upon the requirements of 1808. Walker's
classical Key was used at the Boston Latin Grammar School and Blair's
rhetoric in Miss Pierce's academy at Litchfield.21

Instruction in oral reading claimed a larger proportion of time in ele-
mentary studies than instruction in all aspects of speaking and reading
in the secondary school. Nevertheless, speech training in the secondary
schools may have been superior in quality for at least four reasons: the
teachers were better educated (many academy teachers had M.A.?s);
on the whole the teachers had a more professional attitude, first in the
Latin grammar schools and later in the academies; secondary speech
programs were not limited merely to oral reading (Leicester Academy
had "the art of speaking" and Exeter had "exercises of a forensic kind,"

284 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

to mention only two); and the philosophies basic to secondary schools
indicated an approach to education which differed from that in the
common schools. The college influence upon the grammar school gave
it a somewhat classical slant; on the other hand, the original concept of
education which had promoted the academy produced a more utili-
tarian type of speech training. The close integration of lyceums with
academies in the second quarter of the century is but one example of
school training being put to practical use.

Extracurricular Programs from 1800 to 1825

Almost all schools employed some kind of extracurricular perform-
ances which had their place in speech training. The nature of the per-
formances varied with the individual schools and reflected the age,
interests, and abilities of the students as well as the capabilities of the
instructors. Content ran the gamut from spell-downs, or similar per-
formances of skill in arithmetic, to declamations (original or not), to
debating, dialogues, and plays.

Although prizes and awards for outstanding performance may have
been common, we found only one instance where ribbon awards were
given annually for superior ability in reading. Humphrey reported
informal gatherings of pupils from two schools, but "Quarterdays" were
far more common. At times these were held at individual schools while
in other places several schools combined their talents.22

Some critics felt that these "exhibitions" were excellent because they
'"kept up interest all winter and stimulated both teachers and scholars
to do their best in the way of preparation" while others felt that the
students were "encouraged to most vehement and obstreperous mani-
festations." Many persons objected when the schools put on dialogues
and dramas because their "theatrical cast" was considered immoral in
several sections of the country. Often the program included a variety
of events— original and non-original declamations, dialogues, and plays.
We found some records which indicated that a complete day was used
for such an extensive program. In addition to these forms of entertain-
ment, many academies had debating and rhetorical societies.23

1825 to 1855-Education for All

This period witnessed the culmination of a general belief in, and a
demand for, common education for all. As a result, the structural form
of our public school system as we know it today was achieved by the
middle of the century. The same forces which helped to produce this
result also affected the speech training offered in the elementary and

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 285

secondary schools. Earlier the Lancaster system, the Infant School, the
Sunday School, and the City School Societies had accustomed the popu-
lace to the idea of common schools for all. This idea, intensified by
certain political, economic, and social changes which began in the
first quarter of the century, gave a permanent cast to American educa-
tion by 1855.

After about 1815 the country moved towards the abolition of class
rule and political inequalities—a movement which started in the West-
ern states where men were accepted for their individual worth rather
than for their social standing or for their property. Politically, the
phrase, "dignity and worth of the individual" took on new meaning.
With the extension of suffrage to all men, rich and poor, came the reali-
zation that education was necessary to train men as citizens, and not
merely as members of the Church or for the ministry or because they
belonged to a particular class.24

During this same period the growth of manufacturing increased the
size, number, and importance of cities whose populations then grew
more diversified in economic, religious, and social patterns. Accord-
ingly, the country witnessed the beginnings of a change from an agri-
cultural to an urban society, and this shift, coincident with the desire
for class equality, brought demands from newly formed labor organi-
zations and other groups for a further expansion of educational oppor-
tunities and for improved curriculums. The second quarter of the
century witnessed the long and successful struggle for a tax-supported
school system— a struggle which was directly tied up with the battle to
eliminate pauper or charity schools and church control over education
—both of which were deemed inconsistent with the national conscious-
ness of equality and of non-sectarianism in a democracy.25 Such changes
in the American scene were of course reflected in educational philos-
ophy. Educators began to popularize the needs of man as an articulate^
person in his practical world; and they saw man as a citizen speaking
as well as reading.

Other forces gave impetus and new significance to education in
speaking and reading. The Lyceum movement, the growth of American
literature, and the expansion of both school and public libraries re-
flected a maturing interest in information and culture.26 In the schools,
accordingly, teaching methods began to emphasize full and accurate
understanding of the printed page. Under the influence of Pestalozzi,
Mann, Barnard, and others, there were evident, also, new directions in
pedagogy itself. Teachers began to see the child as a many-sided being,
not as a moral being only. They reasoned that he should understand
the basis of health, and offered him physical training and courses in
physiology; they believed he should understand the world about him,

286 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

and began to introduce courses in science into the curriculum. Educa-
tion took on an "intellectual" objective.

Changes in Speech Education

These objectives in turn influenced class method and procedures.
"Defining" was introduced so that the child could be taught "the habit
of carrying this sense along with the letters of the word"; spelling and
reading were integrated more meaningfully, with spelling losing its
former place of importance and becoming an adjunct of reading; in
grammar, the common dependence upon memorization of rules with
little attention to transfer of training was decried and teachers suggested
teaching a practical grammar and composition from everyday situations.
They favored greater emphasis upon usage in both oral and written
language. Journals carried many articles on vulgarisms, provincialisms,
and improprieties as well as some upon regional differences. They urged
teachers to be as careful of their own speech as of their students' since
it was their duty to preserve the "purity of the English language." 27

The interest in object lessons and visual education was based upon
the philosophy that learning should be integrated with the child's expe-
rience and his everyday language, methods in keeping with contempo-
rary European thinking. The same ideas were reflected in textbooks and
material written for the more formal subjects as well as in juvenile
newspapers, question and answer periods, and class discussions. This
appearance of discussion, designed to develop one's ability to think on
one's feet, was the first indication of interest in good listening habits and
conversational ability. The picture of classroom activity, then, indicates
a definite trend toward speech training in a broader and more practical
sense than that implied in the teaching of oral reading and declamation.
The schools, nevertheless, retained their interest in reading, which
continued to be essentially oral reading; articulation, enunciation, and
pronunciation remained important and show the influence both of the
elocutionary movement, as based upon the work of Walker, Steele and
others, and also of the American concern with literature and culture.
The interest in culture and the elocutionary movement probably helped
to popularize dictionaries, and Walker's, which followed Johnson's Dic-
tionary of the English Language (1755), was long the recognized au-
thority. Gradually, however, Webster's and Worcester's superseded it.
-The phonetic method of teaching reading came into favor in the
lower grades and may have accentuated the emphasis upon articulation
in the upper grades. Teachers were warned to be neither "culpably
negligent ... or fastidiously anxious about a literal copy of Walker's
ortheopy" and that "pedantry in pronunciation is more offensive than

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 287

vulgarity." While regional differences were recognized, instructors
were cautioned to teach pupils to avoid "all the provincialisms which
may prevail in the community in which they have been brought up."
To achieve these goals, teachers used various methods. Some favored
daily phonetic drill to prevent "mumbling, clipping, skipping habits
which are so universal and so destructive to all good reading"; others
depended upon having students correct their own errors through the
use of the dictionary; still others suggested the value of developing
habits of careful listening to make students aware of articulation, or of
using music, a new school subject, or of meticulous drill with the teacher
and pupil in turn reading the sentence.28

Many teachers, school committees, and others interested in the
schools of the period maintained that the teaching of reading should
stress the understanding and communicating of thought more than
correct pronunciation, articulation, enunciation, and modulation. The
two phrases which appeared most frequently in pedagogy were "Read
as you speak" and "Convey the sentiment of the author." These injunc-
tions seemed to be centered on the key desire for understanding by
both the performer and the listener, and to indicate a deeper recogni-
tion of the relationship of oral reading and speaking in the training of
a literate populace. The older emphasis upon quantity of material was
replaced in many instances by an almost fanatical attention to quality,
and some teachers would spend a half hour on a few lines. The pupils
would "spell and define the words; tell their synonyms and opposites;
write and paraphrase the sentence or paragraph; analyze the words;
parse the whole sentence or paragraph; recite the history, geography,,
biography, etc. to which there may be a reference in the sentence." 29
Comments by teachers and students were to be given not only upon
"faults in pronunciation, pauses, inflections, tone; in omitting, substi-
tuting, or putting in words" but also upon "any fault in regard to the
general style and execution of the reading, as affecting the meaning,
strength, or beauty of the passage." 30

In general, there seems to have been a gradually improving attitude
toward rules. "P," for example, suggested that instead of the old "Mind
your stops," the teacher should say, "Mind the sense; read to the sense";
others maintained that children needed "few rules and directions to
guide them in the utterance of sentiments and emotions which they
understand and feel." The stress upon a conscious carry-over from the
style of everyday speaking into reading, the emphasis upon habits of
"good listening" as an aid to improving reading and in developing the
individual, and the oft-reiterated caution to have a "perfect conception
of the piece" or to convey "the sentiment of the author," all indicate a
great improvement in the teaching of reading. Perhaps the basis for

288 RHETORIC, ELOCUTION, AND SPEECH

these changes in methods is to be found in the new interest in the
development of the individual and the recognition of the fact that he
should be taught to think as well as merely to absorb what others have
thought. Nevertheless, many critics continued to maintain that in all
too many schools the children did not understand what they read and
that they were "engaged exclusively with sounds, mere words without
ideas." 31

Textbooks of the Period

Although the old favorites by Bingham, Webster, and Murray re-
mained in general use, many new textbooks appeared during this
period. Primers by Gaullaudet, Worcester, and Parkhurst were highly
recommended; readers by Leavitt, Russell, Pierpont, Swan, Fowle,
Snow, Emerson, Abbot, and Angell were also popular. The famous
McGuffey readers, which were still in use during the twentieth cen-
tury, appeared in the 1830*s. Among textbooks for upper grades and
secondary schools which provided for speech training we should
mention those by Walker, Barber, Emerson, Parker, Putnam, Kelly,
Swan, and Mandeville. Marceline Erickson's thesis reviews some of
these as well as others in the period.

Conversation

Perhaps another forerunner of modern speech training in the schools
was "conversation." This could be "taught in connection with the ordi-
nary recitation exercise ... or we may make it a distinct exercise, giving
out a subject as for composition/' 32

This second, and less prevalent, type of "conversation" may have
developed because of the opportunities for participation in actual dis-
cussions in the lyceums and because the new school libraries opened
vistas beyond the confines of ordinary textbooks. Both undoubtedly
enlarged the horizons of at least some of the students.
JXtol instBttcSea" snanpther term with seemingly the same conno-
tation as that of conversation, "taught in connection with the ordinary
recitation exercise." It bore some resemblance to the "class discussion"
of today although the nineteenth-century pedagogues seemed more
concerned with its value as speech training than seems the case today.
Such class procedure led students not only to a greater understanding
of material, but also "into the habit of thinking and reasoning upon
everything they learn." 33 McGuffey maintained that unless the child
were able to

. . . think without embarrassment in any situation in which he may probably
be placed . . . express His thoughts on any subject with which he is acquainted

NINETEENTH-CENTURY SPEECH EDUCATION 289

with accuracy, and without hesitation . . . generalize his knowledge with
rapidity, so as to construct an argument, or a defence ... he is not educated;
at least he is not educated suitably for this country, and especially for the
West34

We mentioned the fact that the new libraries and the lyceums prob-
ably encouraged "conversation" by providing material for discussion
and opportunities for participation. It is also probably true that the
general emphasis upon understanding as contrasted with rote learning
served as a basis for the introduction of "oral instruction'7 as a teaching
technique and for the occasional emphasis upon listening. The attention
paid to European philosophy, the broadened curriculum, and the new
interest in the child as a complete being were probably other factors
which encouraged attention to conversation.35 "Oral instruction" or
"conversation/' in turn, may have also influenced the teaching of read-
ing, for certainly the injunction, "Read as you speak," must have become
more meaningful to students.

We consider the 1820 to 1855 period significant even though the only
"speech" courses as such were entitled declamation and usually ap-
peared in the upper grades or in secondary programs.

The Secondary Program

The same forces which affected changes in the common schools also
influenced the secondary programs of the Latin grammar schools, the
academies, and the public high schools. Challenging the position of the
academies during the 1820's the public high schools appeared to satisfy
the needs of a democratic society and "represented a cooperative effort
on the part of the people to provide something for themselves." In gen-
eral, the high schools proposed to prepare youths for commercial pur-
suits and general living; the earliest ones "were entirely unrelated to
the grammar schools , . . and to the colleges." By the mid-century mark,
however, they had begun to base their entrance examinations upon
grammar-school subjects and during the 1870's college entrance tests
were such that a "good high school course was practically essential." 36

All three types of secondary schools offered a better type of speech
training than that usually found in the common schools. Elocution and
declamation were often listed as class subjects. In some instances, daily
classes were held; in others, weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly exercises
wjgrejhe^ ru

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "History Of Speech Education In America Background Studies"

See other formats